PDA

View Full Version : FWTT Jrs -- WC Things -- No pro tournaments -- stuff. Poll


Alek
May 5th, 2003, 09:50 PM
Hi.

I received today some messages about the dessition of juniors only playing grand slams and events were they received a wc.

Some of those say to me that they agree on gaining a place in the tournaments by winning jr events as that would increase the interest on jrs. Anyways I also receive the message from some of them + sonfo who runs challengers about why not letting play challengers.

Anyways, this problem has been since the beggining as some players dont like the idea of having jrs as some of the pro's lose always to them in the main draws ;)

So I give me a solution.

Should challengers have few players, should jrs be able to play 2 or 3 challengers + their winning wc's.

Should jr players that want to play fuck theirselves as they can't.

Thanks.

wongqks
May 5th, 2003, 09:58 PM
I think the new system will work great in the long run.

But challengers will be difficult, may I suggest challenger being held once every two weeks, and junior are allowed to partake 10 challengers in a year (as oppose to 10 pros now)

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
May 5th, 2003, 10:19 PM
i think juniors should only be in grand slams plus 1 or 2 wcs a year in home contry, etc.

Yak
May 5th, 2003, 10:38 PM
i think juniors should only be in grand slams plus 1 or 2 wcs a year in home contry, etc.

I agree! Do you see any real junior getting WC in challengers every week? No! Plus, it was that way a year and half ago when Tennis124 was running the junior tour and I thought it was great! It forces you to get off your butt and think!

Sonf@
May 5th, 2003, 11:10 PM
Pff, I will give up doing challengers if the juniors can't play. Nowadays the 50-60% of the players that play challengers are juniors, and there's no way I will make challengers with only three players playing it.

Lee-Waters' Boy
May 5th, 2003, 11:20 PM
I don't think juniors should play challengers either. I mean if Jacquelyn has the opportunity to earn points every week vs. playing on the jr. tour..she'd play challengers all the time.

Although I do understand sonfo's problem...maybe a few challengers a year plus grand slams? I dunno :) I just play so I don't have to make these decisions lol

Yak
May 5th, 2003, 11:26 PM
To be honest, I'd just put challenger during the second week of GS or big Tier 1 events. Generally, there are one big tier event per week and a smaller event for lower ranked or number 1 wanting bonus points :rolleyes: so I don't see the need for challenger anyway. Sorry sonfo, you do a great job but...

Scotso
May 5th, 2003, 11:51 PM
If you're going to change this, could you wait until next year to do so? I like the system we have now. Of course, to play pro events juniors should have to play junior events, as well. But my junior player plays a few pro events, but that doesn't stop her from participating actively in the junior tour.

Yak
May 6th, 2003, 02:11 AM
If you're going to change this, could you wait until next year to do so? I like the system we have now. Of course, to play pro events juniors should have to play junior events, as well. But my junior player plays a few pro events, but that doesn't stop her from participating actively in the junior tour.

It is in activation now(the new system)! And I know you participate a lot but some players don't like Lara Miela and Olive Mozzarella-Peperonni! The new rules is because of people like them!

Tennis124
May 6th, 2003, 04:35 AM
As I am sure you know. I am very against having two players in the pros. Now I am not very involved with what goes on in the challengers and juniors, but this is what I think.

Are there players that have only a junior player and no pro player? If there is, I think those juniors should be allowed to play challengers. If the poster already has a pro, they should not be allowed to play ANY events. I find it very obnoxious to lose to juniors in the Grand Slams, which happened to me last year at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

I definitely support the current change. I like it. But I think that if they already have a pro, then what's the point. If they don't then, they should be allowed to play challengers.

Lee-Waters' Boy
May 6th, 2003, 04:48 AM
Eggert, if you lose to a junior in a grand slam thats your fault, not the system's. It's fun to have more players in grand slams, so juniors and pros should be allowed :D

spencercarlos
May 6th, 2003, 05:14 AM
As I am sure you know. I am very against having two players in the pros. Now I am not very involved with what goes on in the challengers and juniors, but this is what I think.

Are there players that have only a junior player and no pro player? If there is, I think those juniors should be allowed to play challengers. If the poster already has a pro, they should not be allowed to play ANY events. I find it very obnoxious to lose to juniors in the Grand Slams, which happened to me last year at Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

I definitely support the current change. I like it. But I think that if they already have a pro, then what's the point. If they don't then, they should be allowed to play challengers.
I support you Tennis124, i have a Junior player playing, and i like the idea of having juniors involved in the Grand Slam events, they make the draw bigger, but i don`t agree the idea of having 2 players in PRO. I like the idea of having person owner of a Junior and a PRO players, but not TWO pro`s.

As for juniors, its ok for me, the 4 grand slam events + 6 wild card is good.

Tennis124
May 6th, 2003, 05:54 AM
I feel like such a right-wing conservative whenever this topic comes up. Thanks for the support petosp!

Kris
May 6th, 2003, 07:40 AM
i think juniors should only be in grand slams plus 1 or 2 wcs a year in home contry, etc.

same opinion!

Mattographer
May 6th, 2003, 07:42 AM
Fair enough :)

Sonf@
May 6th, 2003, 12:53 PM
fine then. Bye bye Itfs.

Randy H
May 6th, 2003, 01:06 PM
well i don't think it's unrealistic to see juniors playing pro events - if they are good enough, then they play them. look at the likes of dinara safina, maria sharapova, and others in the past such as krasnoroutskaya, hingis, kournikova, venus and serena...etc...all talented players and many of them didn't even need wilcards into events at some point because the initial WC's given were made the most of, meaning they could gain direct entry into some events anyway, which is the case for some on the FWTT tour also. so i don't see what is necessarily unrealistic about the situation we have.

at the end of the day, i don't really care all that much what the decision is because i don't think it will make any difference. if you can't win now, you probably aren't going to vault up to #5 in the world because a few juniors suddenly aren't there now unless you manage a lucky week that can get you a big bonus point advantage, which even still isn't going to really give you that big an edge anyway on the pro circuit.

what i am annoyed with however, is the sudden implement of this rule following what was already a plan at the start of this particular season. if you want to start it at the beginning on next year then fine, but halfway through the year is a bit silly when some juniors used up most of their pro wildcards anyway and therefore will have a better edge into getting into the maindraw of the slams now rather than the qualifying, while others didn't get the opportunity to use what they had originally been given and therefore have a disadvantage now.

i also think that there is no point in having the ITF challengers now because it is obvious the draws are too small without juniors, and they are never that big with them anyway. i never really saw what the need for them was, but this only further confirms the point that they are not necessary.

Gnaag
May 6th, 2003, 01:37 PM
I have a suggestion, for what itís worth.

The number of pro events juniors can enter should be slashed from 10 down to 3. As well, some heavy restrictions should be attached.

Iíve noticed that some junior players joined the game in only the last month or two and have played a score of pro events already. Thatís just ridiculous. Juniors should be prohibited from entering pro events until they have played a minimum of 20 twenty junior events.

On top of that, to enter a pro event, the player must be ranked inside the top twenty of the junior rankings at the time of entry. The only exception to any of these would be wildcards into pro events of the juniorís native country.

Yak
May 6th, 2003, 03:26 PM
I have a suggestion, for what it’s worth.

The number of pro events juniors can enter should be slashed from 10 down to 3. As well, some heavy restrictions should be attached.

I’ve noticed that some junior players joined the game in only the last month or two and have played a score of pro events already. That’s just ridiculous. Juniors should be prohibited from entering pro events until they have played a minimum of 20 twenty junior events.

On top of that, to enter a pro event, the player must be ranked inside the top twenty of the junior rankings at the time of entry. The only exception to any of these would be wildcards into pro events of the junior’s native country.

I think that is interesting!

Monica_Rules
May 6th, 2003, 03:57 PM
Ok i think Juniors should get to play all 4 grandslams. 1/2 home events and 4/5 challangers so they can play no more than 10 events in total in one year!

Tennis124
May 6th, 2003, 04:45 PM
What are the WTA Age eligibility rules?

Gnaag
May 6th, 2003, 04:49 PM
What are the WTA Age eligibility rules?

You can play a maximum of 10 pro events per season until you're 18, then it's unlimited. I believe.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
May 6th, 2003, 10:09 PM
The main problem is trying to do something plain and simple.

The more complex it is, the more difficult it is to explain to new members PLUS the more difficult it is to keep up with.

I mean, plenty of folks are willing to shoot out insults to people that help in this game, but they don't realize the time and effort that goes into it....so it's best to keep it plain and simple for everyone.

Sam L
May 7th, 2003, 02:29 AM
i think juniors should only be in grand slams plus 1 or 2 wcs a year in home contry, etc.

No I think juniors should get as many WC's as their countries host tournaments. But you have to fight for those WC's do you know what I mean? Like not everyone gets it.

wongqks
May 7th, 2003, 06:46 AM
No I think juniors should get as many WC's as their countries host tournaments. But you have to fight for those WC's do you know what I mean? Like not everyone gets it.

but that will be spo unfair to players who come from remote country