PDA

View Full Version : What is considered a full time schedule?


coolfish1103
Dec 20th, 2012, 08:12 PM
We have many debates on TF on players not playing full time schedule so they create lopsided rankings. Therefore, what is considered a full time schedule?

1. Any 11~15 Tournaments
- 11 being max tournaments counted for doubles

2. Any 16 Tournaments
- 16 being max tournaments counted for singles

3. 16 Tournaments including GS/YEC if qualified

4. 16 Tournaments including GS/YEC/PM if qualified

5. 16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings

6. 17-21 Tournaments

7. Other

Currently, the number of tournaments played by top players in singles are:

13 - Serena
14 - Sharapova
17 - Li
18 - Azarenka, Kvitova
21 - Kerber
22 - Radwanska
23 - Errani, Stosur, Wozniacki
25 - Bartoli

Players in bold satisfied current WTA ranking requirements and did not receive penalty zeroes.

Sammo
Dec 20th, 2012, 08:18 PM
How many tournaments has Julia Cohen played this year? 140?

duhcity
Dec 20th, 2012, 08:20 PM
16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings

bobito
Dec 20th, 2012, 09:14 PM
The WTA have outlined the requirement, anything less is surely not a full season.

Here's another question. Since the rules require players to participate in 16 tournaments including 4 GS, 4 PM, 4P5, YEC and 2 P700, if a player makes no effort to abide by those rules in order to be in better physical condition than her rivals at grand slams, is she cheating?

NashaMasha
Dec 20th, 2012, 09:26 PM
16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings

this

definitely 4GS + 4PM + at least 2 P5 are compulsory and total shouldn't be less than 16

JustPetko
Dec 20th, 2012, 09:32 PM
How many tournaments has Julia Cohen played this year? 140?

Only 36.





I am shocked too :eek:

KournikovaFan91
Dec 20th, 2012, 09:50 PM
16 under WTA rule requirements. :shrug: I mean that is what the WTA kinda outlines as a season in terms of ranking so anything less could be considered not a full season.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Dec 20th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Its upto the players. What matters more is what they think is a full schedule for their body.

iWill
Dec 20th, 2012, 10:47 PM
I'm torn on this issue because on one hand I do think the tour should set a standard for what is considered a full season. It makes the rankings system moderately fair. But I don't think they should be able to mandate players to play anything other than the slams. If someone doesn't want to fly to Beijing or Los Angeles for whatever reason they shouldn't have to.

I don't like the fact that the rankings reward quantity over quality because if a player can show up with little preparation and go deep in the Slams they shouldn't be penalized because they chose not to play Madrid or Toronto.

To answer the question I said any amount between 11-15 tournaments because it equates to at least 1 event per month and many players do much more than that. If someone wanted to play 26 tournaments than great but they should cap how many results will count towards a player's ranking. That way someone that makes it to the QF or better of 19 events in the year would only see points from 16-18.

Lastly I miss the quality point system from the WTA. I think there is added value if you beat any player ranked between 1-10. How this could be added into the current system I'm not entirely sure but if you win a tournament defeating world number 4, 3, and 1 that should count for way more than winning a tournament defeating players ranked 15, 26, and 30.

SerenaSlam
Dec 20th, 2012, 11:15 PM
I personally feel 13-14 tournaments is pushing it. Especially if you are successful.

Alejandrawrrr
Dec 20th, 2012, 11:25 PM
The obvious answer is the 16 events. But being a bit subjective, I think it really varies depending on how far you go in the events you play. I don't think anyone would argue someone who enters 36 events, losing R1 in most or all of them played a fuller schedule than someone playing only 14, but making QF-SF-F or winning all of them. Just look at Justine Henin, who IIRC played exactly 16 events in 2007(off the top of my head, I could be way off,) with SFs or better in every one of them I think, and winning 10 of them. She basically had nothing left in the tank after that season, leading to mediocre results and an early retirement. So if a player is playing excellent tennis and dominating(which is every player's goal) 16 events might be pushing it. I'd prefer if they do away with the mandatory events and just keep the best of 16 rule. Especially with mandatory events being flops like Madrid or Beijing.

dybbuk
Dec 20th, 2012, 11:39 PM
A "full schedule" varies by player. A full schedule for a 30 year old top 5 player will probably be mid teens or so. But if some player ranked 50 or so and is 23 years old, 16 tournaments would most likely be too little. Players are the ones who know their bodies, know how much they can take, know how many tournaments they need to peak at the important events, etc. It's up to them to decide what a full, optimal schedule is. Armchair tennis experts who say a player is playing too little or too much usually has no idea what they're talking about.

faboozadoo15
Dec 20th, 2012, 11:55 PM
I think it would be interesting to see the the number of matches played versus the number of tournaments.

I'm sure Maria and Serena competed more often than almost any player on tour.

The real reason Azarenka is #1 is because she has no 0 pointers. She has good endurance and also played at a high level all year.

Achernar
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:05 AM
To answer the question, I'll go with "16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings". It's the minimum requirements, so...Besides, I don't blame the players if they play less but, as a fan, I wish to see my favorites as often as possible.

However, the real question would be: how come so many "fans" show nothing but contempt for those players who are dedicated to their work and try to play more than the minimum required? How come they expect a young and healthy player to follow the same schedule than a semi-retired player who has achieved everything she wanted and is now playing mainly for her personal glory?

Here's another question. Since the rules require players to participate in 16 tournaments including 4 GS, 4 PM, 4P5, YEC and 2 P700, if a player makes no effort to abide by those rules in order to be in better physical condition than her rivals at grand slams, is she cheating?

Obviously not :lol:

In any event, the players have their own needs and strategy. Some need to play as often as possible to be at their best, others seek to preserve their energy.

However, if they were all playing only a handful of tournaments a year, we would have a lot less tournaments than we currently have.

I don't like the fact that the rankings reward quantity over quality because if a player can show up with little preparation and go deep in the Slams they shouldn't be penalized because they chose not to play Madrid or Toronto.

This is a myth. The most important ranking points are provided by the biggest tournaments, starting with the Grand Slams. If you're going to reach the top10, you have to make your way into several QF, SF and finals at the Slams, Mandatory and P5 events. And to do so, you have to beat the best players, since they are the ones you meet at these stages. The WTA is not favoring "quantity over quality". Instead, the top ranked players have to combine quantity and quality.

To answer the question I said any amount between 11-15 tournaments because it equates to at least 1 event per month and many players do much more than that. If someone wanted to play 26 tournaments than great but they should cap how many results will count towards a player's ranking. That way someone that makes it to the QF or better of 19 events in the year would only see points from 16-18.

This is already the case, since only 16 tournaments are included in the ranking.

Lastly I miss the quality point system from the WTA. I think there is added value if you beat any player ranked between 1-10. How this could be added into the current system I'm not entirely sure but if you win a tournament defeating world number 4, 3, and 1 that should count for way more than winning a tournament defeating players ranked 15, 26, and 30.

I have nothing against the quality points, but it has been demonstrated many times that this system has little impact on the ranking and it induces some rather unfortunates bias.

Achernar
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:12 AM
The obvious answer is the 16 events. But being a bit subjective, I think it really varies depending on how far you go in the events you play. I don't think anyone would argue someone who enters 36 events, losing R1 in most or all of them played a fuller schedule than someone playing only 14, but making QF-SF-F or winning all of them.

Well said. We should also take into account the fact that the vast majority of players simply don't know how far they'll go in every tournament at the beginning of the year.

A "full schedule" varies by player. A full schedule for a 30 year old top 5 player will probably be mid teens or so. But if some player ranked 50 or so and is 23 years old, 16 tournaments would most likely be too little. Players are the ones who know their bodies, know how much they can take, know how many tournaments they need to peak at the important events, etc. It's up to them to decide what a full, optimal schedule is. Armchair tennis experts who say a player is playing too little or too much usually has no idea what they're talking about.

:yeah:

bobito
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:13 AM
I think it would be interesting to see the the number of matches played versus the number of tournaments.

I'm sure Maria and Serena competed more often than almost any player on tour.

The real reason Azarenka is #1 is because she has no 0 pointers. She has good endurance and also played at a high level all year.

Kerber 82
Azarenka 79
Radwanska 78
Errani 77
Sharapova 71
Wozniacki 71
Stosur 68
Kvitova 63
Williams 62
Li Na 59

Wiggly
Dec 21st, 2012, 01:12 AM
4 Slams, 5 Mandatories, 4 Premiers, 2 Premier 470s and one or two Internationals.

coolfish1103
Dec 21st, 2012, 01:19 AM
Based on WTA rules the number of matches:

4 GS = 28 Matches
4 PM = ~24 Matches
4 P5 = ~24 Matches
4 Additional = ~20 Matches

A perfect player would have played 96 matches in the entire year.

If a player make at least half way in each tournament, then

4 GS = 16 Matches
4 PM = ~16 Matches
4 P5 = ~16 Matches
4 Additional = ~12 Matches

So approximately 60 matches per year is the average, which is about right for most players.

Ideally Li, Williams and Kvitova are doing just right to be in the Top 10, while the rest are pushing a bit more even though they are winning tournaments left and right (except Stosur).

Achernar
Dec 21st, 2012, 01:41 AM
Based on WTA rules the number of matches:

4 GS = 28 Matches
4 PM = ~24 Matches
4 P5 = ~24 Matches
4 Additional = ~20 Matches

A perfect player would have played 96 matches in the entire year.

If a player make at least half way in each tournament, then

4 GS = 16 Matches
4 PM = ~16 Matches
4 P5 = ~16 Matches
4 Additional = ~12 Matches

So approximately 60 matches per year is the average, which is about right for most players.

Ideally Li, Williams and Kvitova are doing just right to be in the Top 10, while the rest are pushing a bit more even though they are winning tournaments left and right (except Stosur).

In your schedule no one gets a bye :sad:

Justin SW
Dec 21st, 2012, 02:11 AM
this

definitely 4GS + 4PM + at least 2 P5 are compulsory and total shouldn't be less than 16

nahh 4/5 P5 is the ratio and it should be.

mens have to play 4 GS, 9 Masters, and a few tournaments here and there...they play about 18-20 a year. Women should at least play 14 in my mind. (14-16)

4 GS
4 PM
4 P5
2-3 P700
1-2 International

sweetadri06
Dec 21st, 2012, 02:23 AM
14-16 is probably about right but this is if you are getting to qf/sf/f in almost every tournament. If you're losing round one in like every event then you'll play even more. ex. Bartoli I think Serena and Maria have just the right schedule considering they made it to the later stages more often than not. If Vika didn't play those extra events at the end of the year in order to keep number one than she would be in the 14-16 range too.

coolfish1103
Dec 21st, 2012, 03:09 AM
In your schedule no one gets a bye :sad:

Not true. Indian Wells and Miami's BYE are considered.

BYEs from other tournaments are only minorities where they shouldn't be considered, except maybe Cincinnati or Montreal/Toronto.

duhcity
Dec 21st, 2012, 03:44 AM
I think it would be interesting to see the the number of matches played versus the number of tournaments.

I'm sure Maria and Serena competed more often than almost any player on tour.

The real reason Azarenka is #1 is because she has no 0 pointers. She has good endurance and also played at a high level all year.

Vika had 3(2?) 0-pointers at one point in the season, and was still #1.

Achernar
Dec 21st, 2012, 03:53 AM
Not true. Indian Wells and Miami's BYE are considered.

BYEs from other tournaments are only minorities where they shouldn't be considered, except maybe Cincinnati or Montreal/Toronto.

You're right about IW and Miami's BYE. I forgot that they have 7 rounds.

But if you're creating the standard schedule for a top player (for example), you should ideally take into account many other BYE, since most P5 and Mandatory events are distributing them for the whole Top8 (Rome, Tokyo, Miami, Cincinnati, Doha, Montreal, Beijing?). Many lesser events are also using it. This means that a top-player can avoid playing from 8 to 12 matches over the term of a year.

Obviously, the players outside the Top8 aren't benefiting from this advantage.

bobito
Dec 21st, 2012, 04:10 AM
You're right about IW and Miami's BYE. I forgot that they have 7 rounds.

But if you're creating the standard schedule for a top player (for example), you should ideally take into account many other BYE, since most P5 and Mandatory events are distributing them for the whole Top8 (Rome, Tokyo, Miami, Cincinnati, Doha, Montreal, Beijing?). Many lesser events are also using it. This means that a top-player can avoid playing from 8 to 12 matches over the term of a year.

Obviously, the players outside the Top8 aren't benefiting from this advantage.

It's reasonable to suppose that any player good enogh to go an entire year unbeaten would be getting a 1st round bye at every tournament except grand slams (assuming they aren't bothering with MMs). That would bring the number of matches in a year down from the 96 Coolfish suggested to 86.

Steffi Graf played 83 matches in 16 tournaments in 1993. That's a lot of matches but, when you consider that she won 63 of them in straight sets and dished out 16 bagels and 45 breadsticks, she probably spent fewer hours on court than most of the other players in the top 10 that year did.