PDA

View Full Version : WTA replaces Masha with Lindzi on 2005 Tennis Guide


pierce0415
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:24 PM
Publishing Arrangement First of its Kind for Popular Joint Tennis Guide


http://www.atptennis.com/shared/photos/other/mediaguide_atp.jpg http://www.atptennis.com/shared/photos/other/mediaguide_wta.jpg The ATP and WTA Tour announced today that Sport Media Publishing Inc., whose publishing imprint is SPORTClassic Books, will publish Official Guide to Professional Tennis 2005, the popular joint guide first published last year as part of the ATP and WTA Tour’s "One Game" initiative. The program was created to explore and develop synergies between the two global organizations.

Sport Media Publishing, based in Toronto, Canada, has secured the exclusive, worldwide rights to print, distribute and market the Official Guide to Professional Tennis 2005 to retail outlets and booksellers. The Guide’s roots are the separate WTA Tour and ATP media guides that the tennis media have relied on for more than a decade.

The 2005 Guide will feature the World No. 1 players from this season on the two front-and-back covers. Roger Federer secured the 2004 ATP World No. 1 after winning the US Open; Lindsay Davenport clinched the 2004 WTA World No. 1 at this week's WTA Tour Championships in Los Angeles.

"I'm honored to be featured on the cover of the Official Guide to Professional Tennis for the first time in my career," Federer said. "It has traditionally featured the game's No. 1 player, so I'm glad to join that elite group of players. The Guide is a great resource for the media and fans to learn more about the players, tournaments and the game."

"We think the Official Guide to Professional Tennis 2005 is a fun, comprehensive showcase of the best that the game has to offer for sports fans," said Susan Lomax, WTA Tour Vice President, Worldwide Communications.

"Player profiles, statistics and action photography will continue to be the centerpiece attractions of the book, and we plan to work with Sport Media Publishing to enhance the 2005 edition for both the media and fans." Added David Higdon, ATP Senior Vice President, Communications: "We were pleased with the success of the inaugural joint ATP-WTA Tour guide last year, and this new partnership allows us to distribute and market the Official Guide to more fans throughout the world."

SPORTClassic Books is best known for its "Total" series of sports encyclopedias, including Total Tennis, Total Baseball, Total Basketball, Total Hockey, Total Football, and The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics. Previous tennis titles include a Hall of Fame edition of Frank Deford’s Big Bill Tilden and this summer’s Jimmy Connors Saved My Life by Joel Drucker.

"We’re excited by the opportunity to work with the world’s leading tennis organizations," said SPORTClassic Books publisher Jim O’Leary. "Their Official Guide is an exquisite collection of tennis info and statistics and is a perfect fit in our line of reference titles."

The inaugural Official Guide to Professional Tennis, which included biographies and photos of more than 400 ATP and WTA Tour players, was produced in a first-of-its-kind format with WTA Tour material featured in one half of the book and the ATP in the other half. Readers have the ability to flip the book over to savor comprehensive statistical and biographical information traditionally featured only in each organization's media guide.

GermanBoy
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:32 PM
http://www.atptennis.com/shared/photos/other/mediaguide_wta.jpg
Well done, right decision! :worship:

SJW
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:35 PM
absolutely correct decision. they definitely should have the two number ones on the cover.

griffin
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Of course Lindsay should be on the cover.

But where does this article say anything about Masha?

lindsayno1
Nov 18th, 2004, 04:06 PM
FINALLY. There was a big debate about this a while ago, that the YE#1 should have it. And lindsay is rightfully on the front cover!

the cat
Nov 18th, 2004, 04:12 PM
It's irrelevant to me who is on the cover. But Sharapova clearly out performed Davenport this year winning 2 of the top 5 tournamnsts while Davenport didn't even make a final in any of the top 5 tournaments. That cannot be denied. It's fine that Davenport is honored by being put on the 2005 WTA Tour Guide cover but don't say she had a better year or even an equal year to Sharapova's because that's not the case.

bandabou
Nov 18th, 2004, 04:19 PM
It's irrelevant to me who is on the cover. But Sharapova clearly out performed Davenport this year winning 2 of the top 5 tournamnsts while Davenport didn't even make a final in any of the top 5 tournaments. That cannot be denied. It's fine that Davenport is honored by being put on the 2005 WTA Tour Guide cover but don't say she had a better year or even an equal year to Sharapova's because that's not the case.


Hey, hey....winning 5 tier II´s and 2 tier I´s is better than winning Wimbledon and the YEC, should know that about now.......;)

the cat
Nov 18th, 2004, 04:30 PM
LOL bandy I should know that by now but I don't! :lol: Lindsay had a good year and became a real threat again at the majors. But she failed to deliver in the majors. Ask yourself this bandy, would Lindsay trade her year for Maria's year? The answer is pretty obvious. ;) The answer is yes.

AlexB
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:03 PM
LOL bandy I should know that by now but I don't! :lol: Lindsay had a good year and became a real threat again at the majors. But she failed to deliver in the majors. Ask yourself this bandy, would Lindsay trade her year for Maria's year? The answer is pretty obvious. ;) The answer is yes.


The answer is no....number one to me is more important . Besides sharapova won wimbledon and YEC, a great year no doubt, but also should lose some status for playing those god awful tournaments in sep/oct where she was the ONLY player in the top 30....in other words her points total is padded

lindsayno1
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:11 PM
PLUS masha was playing tier III's this year!

the cat
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:26 PM
How is it that the 17 year old Sharapova can't play a couple of Tier lll's while the 28 year old Davenport played and won a couple of Tier ll's? It's doesn't make sense.

Alex, making it to #1 only means alot if you win a grand slam singles title that year.

Dava
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Correct desicion I feel, however on a personal level would have preffered Masha.

manu32
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:31 PM
yes that's a good decision

the cat
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:40 PM
A far as the cover goes I am fine with Davenport getting the recognition.

AlexB
Nov 18th, 2004, 05:51 PM
How is it that the 17 year old Sharapova can't play a couple of Tier lll's while the 28 year old Davenport played and won a couple of Tier ll's? It's doesn't make sense.

Alex, making it to #1 only means alot if you win a grand slam singles title that year.


some Davenport's tier II contained top 5/10 players..sharapovas tier III late in the year had players only hardcore fans would know, if that.

Winning slams is part of the number one ranking but not all of it, I equate it to NASCAR where you can win the championship without winning the Daytona 500. NASCAR promotes the year end champion over the biggest race.

The problem with the WTA and ATP is that they let the majors overide their seasons. Look at the ATP, which allows a major winner to gain a spot into the masters cup even if he is not in the top 8..Thats total crap that rewards a player getting hot for two weeks over a player that has been consistent over 11 months. The majors flex their muscles and the fans/media allow them to. To me I will always see this as a sports fan, the final standings being more important than a couple of weeks in the year.

CrossingDelancey
Nov 18th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Hey, hey....winning 5 tier II´s and 2 tier I´s is better than winning Wimbledon and the YEC, should know that about now.......;)


It's far sight more than Serena could manage. That's for-sure.

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 06:35 PM
some Davenport's tier II contained top 5/10 players..sharapovas tier III late in the year had players only hardcore fans would know, if that.

Winning slams is part of the number one ranking but not all of it, I equate it to NASCAR where you can win the championship without winning the Daytona 500. NASCAR promotes the year end champion over the biggest race.

The problem with the WTA and ATP is that they let the majors overide their seasons. Look at the ATP, which allows a major winner to gain a spot into the masters cup even if he is not in the top 8..Thats total crap that rewards a player getting hot for two weeks over a player that has been consistent over 11 months. The majors flex their muscles and the fans/media allow them to. To me I will always see this as a sports fan, the final standings being more important than a couple of weeks in the year.
maybe for you, not for me, and certainly not for most of the players.

winning GSs vs # 1 is not even close to me.

Put it this way, if I was a player and was given the chance of

1) Win a Grand Slam and NOTHING else, finish the year outside the top 10 (because with a slam lower than that wouldn't be possible).

2) win every single non-gs title, including the YEC, but no GSs, and finish the year # 1.

Without a nanosecond of hesitation I would prefer 1.

Justine, Myskina, Maria and Sveta can IMO compete for who has the better year, all the others are out by definition.

cmon
Nov 18th, 2004, 06:36 PM
I'm delighted that Lindsay made the cover, neither of the grand slam winners had a consistent enough year I mean if Maria was on the cover people would have been asking why not one of the other slam victors! Having the two world #1's is the way to do it

WTAaddict
Nov 18th, 2004, 06:37 PM
Yeah!!! lindsay is the number one!!!! Why put someone else?

AnDyDog621
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:14 PM
I thought they did the right thing, put the 2 #1's on the front cover. Cause there is gonna be a debate sometimes about who had a better year. But just putting the #1 player on the cover, makes it a lot easier. And i would say less agrument

AlexB
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:15 PM
maybe for you, not for me, and certainly not for most of the players.

winning GSs vs # 1 is not even close to me.

Put it this way, if I was a player and was given the chance of

1) Win a Grand Slam and NOTHING else, finish the year outside the top 10 (because with a slam lower than that wouldn't be possible).

2) win every single non-gs title, including the YEC, but no GSs, and finish the year # 1.

Without a nanosecond of hesitation I would prefer 1.

Justine, Myskina, Maria and Sveta can IMO compete for who has the better year, all the others are out by definition.

I'll take the number 2 please...ANYBODY can win a slam ie play well enough for 2 weeks, but not everybody can handle the long season and all the intangibles that go with the number one ranking...you can be mentally tough, physically tough, healthy and play well for 2 weeks, but an even better measure is if you can do it the whole year with all that travel and wear and tear.

vutt
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:25 PM
right choice, no doubt !!

AlexB
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Players care about winning Slams. It's great to be number 1, but it's not comparable to win one or several Slams. It's not my opinion, or Fingon's opinion, it's the way tennis players and people involve in tennis feel.

Right, because thats what they are told...americans are told, that only our countrymen/women are important so when you have russians in the us open final (besides the presenters butchering her name) or a swiss and an aussie, nobody watches because no focus is placed on foreign players, we see them as inferior (stupid way to look at things) we are told only the majors matter so thats why after the US open nobody cares about tennis....just because things are done one way doesnt make it right. Tennis kills itself by only promoting the majors/and american players in the US...if no focus is placed on the number one ranking, of course nobody, players included, will care. if the media/people say linday davenports #1 ranking is no good because of no major, thats what people will think..if you bury her accompishment no one will take it seriously. (and im not a davenport fan so im not presenting my case for that reason, because if mauresmo was year end 1 i would have argued for her just as loudly)


Put a 10 million dollar price tag on year end number one and then see if "tennis people" start caring. some people ignore the #1 because of money/prestige, including "tennis people" that should know better than a non tennis person like myself how much harder a year end #1 is to get

joaco
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:56 PM
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: Lindsay!!

bis2806
Nov 18th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Lindsay :D

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Right, because thats what they are told...americans are told, that only our countrymen/women are important so when you have russians in the us open final (besides the presenters butchering her name) or a swiss and an aussie, nobody watches because no focus is placed on foreign players, we see them as inferior (stupid way to look at things) we are told only the majors matter so thats why after the US open nobody cares about tennis....just because things are done one way doesnt make it right. Tennis kills itself by only promoting the majors/and american players in the US...if no focus is placed on the number one ranking, of course nobody, players included, will care. if the media/people say linday davenports #1 ranking is no good because of no major, thats what people will think..if you bury her accompishment no one will take it seriously. (and im not a davenport fan so im not presenting my case for that reason, because if mauresmo was year end 1 i would have argued for her just as loudly)


Put a 10 million dollar price tag on year end number one and then see if "tennis people" start caring. some people ignore the #1 because of money/prestige, including "tennis people" that should know better than a non tennis person like myself how much harder a year end #1 is to get
oh please, now because players don't have your point of view then they are brainwashed :rolleyes: .

Plus I am sorry but the 10 million dollars prize tag is ridiculous, if you give 10 million dollars to any players that rides a bycicle around Manhattan you will see all players riding bycicles around Manhattan instead of playing the US Open.

I see you admit you are not a tennis person, then that explains it all. The # 1 (or rankings) have only existed for less than 30 years, while the GSs have been around for more than a century. They are the history of tennis. Tennis is about traditions and certainly the GS are far more important than any ranking.

I find it amusing that you are a non-tennis person and try to tell the "tennis" persons, including professional players what tennis is like.

I guess this discussion makes no sense, maybe when you understand tennis you will know what we are talking about.

Dawn Marie
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:06 PM
Maria and Lindsay had KINDA equal years imho, yet winning a slam is better.

Lindsay already has won slams and has been #1. To become #1 again is a good accomplishment.

Maria won her first slam and the year end champs.

Yet give me the grandslams anyday after you have been #1. Bottomline tennis players want both. They want slams, they know #1 will come. Then after they have gotten to the top, they really focus on slam trophies and could care less if they are ranked 10-2 they want SLAMS!!:):)

Dawn Marie
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:09 PM
When you win a slam you KNOW you deserved the win. You were the best player for those 2 weeks. You were on TV winning to the world. When you are #1 in the WTA it really doesn't mean much anymore. It just shows that you play tourneys and win a few and gain points. It also shows that you probably didn't have much to defend the year prior.

the cat
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Well said DR. Martian Bagel, Fingon and Dawn Marie. I'm happy others also realize the value if winning a grand slam singles titles is the greatest thing a tennis player can accomplish! :D It's even more important than becoming #1. Becoming #1 for the first time is important but I don't believe a tennis player would ever trade a grand slam title for becoming #1. I am sure Petr Korda wouldn't trade his Australian Open title for becoming #1. Nor would Thomas Johansson or any other tennis player who has 1 grand slam singles title.

mboyle
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:31 PM
PLUS masha was playing tier III's this year!
she played three all year. Davenport played two. What is your point?

mboyle
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:34 PM
this really makes me sad:sad: . Maria worked so hard and clearly had the best year of anyone, and Davenport gets on the cover. Davenport has already had her day in the sun!

deep bass
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Go Lindsey! The No 1 is the best player over the year. Good for you Big L!

bandabou
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM
One thing is for sure.....the years of the respective no.1´s couldnt have been more different from each other....

AlexB
Nov 18th, 2004, 08:58 PM
oh please, now because players don't have your point of view then they are brainwashed :rolleyes: .

Plus I am sorry but the 10 million dollars prize tag is ridiculous, if you give 10 million dollars to any players that rides a bycicle around Manhattan you will see all players riding bycicles around Manhattan instead of playing the US Open.

I see you admit you are not a tennis person, then that explains it all. The # 1 (or rankings) have only existed for less than 30 years, while the GSs have been around for more than a century. They are the history of tennis. Tennis is about traditions and certainly the GS are far more important than any ranking.

I find it amusing that you are a non-tennis person and try to tell the "tennis" persons, including professional players what tennis is like.

I guess this discussion makes no sense, maybe when you understand tennis you will know what we are talking about.

ok where to begin here
never once did i use the word brainwashed...you talk about tradition and thats why the majors are held in high esteem...ill be the first to admit that your viewpoint has the bigger majority but that doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

the establishment in the us focuses the most on american players and thats why the ratings are poor..i dont have to understand tenns to know its wrong.. and if i went by tennis traditions then as a middle class male i shouldnt be watching because tennis has the tradition of being rich only/white. those traditions are changing, so why cant the GS/Number 1 debate change?

Also the money IS a good idea because you just said if you paid the tennis player he would ride a bike so if you pay the year end number 1 he will care..how is it that the masters series wants to diminish top players pulling out? by offering more money of course ..as an aside, if i had the money and ran a tournament the same weeks as wimbledon, but gave 10 million dollars to the winner, how many of the top players would come....some would wouldnt they? so much for tradition..if tradition was so important that number would be zero but it wouldnt..i respect tradition more than anyone but traditions should/do change (if you were running football in the 60's you wouldn;t have agreed to the superbowl because the AFL was seen as inferior and not being worthy opponents but look how football grew by taking a chance with the game..people told superbowl proponets that they were making a mistake)..the rankings have been around thirty years, they should be a newer better tradition. (as an aside, wasn't it tradition for all the top players to play davis/fed cup, but now thay pull out without any difficulty)

i dont have to understand tennis to know that tennis is a niche sport because it refuses to listen to new ideas. and i may not be a tennis person but i pay my 5 dollars extra to get the tennis channel and i get up in the morning to watch the Kremlin Cup before college football. im up watching tournaments no one else would, going against tradition of ignoring non slams (and thats what happens when you ignore non slams players/fans dont care either)..i am a sports fan and i want tennis to grow...why is it that alll my friends will travel all over america and canada to watch baseball and wrestling but not even touch tennis? because of tradition...i love tennis and as a consumer, my idea may help it grow, unless you wantto stay in that rich, lilywhite nitch world where only the elite watched...trust me tennis will be better off if 60000 people are watching, even if it means less tradition...baseball gas tradition but the DH rule and the wild card are not as old as baseball but people have accepted them, no brainwashing. stick and ball sports have 1 champion and NASCAR has 1 champion, and my friends, if they watched tennis will want 1 champion.

see maybe i dont understand tennis but the tennis people dont understand trying to grow the sport to appeal to the middle/lower classes.

as for the peter korda argument, of course he wouldn't trade because the number one ranking doesnt gettthe respect it deserves, which in MY opinion should be greater.

Sometimes a little outsider perspective wont hurt...

faboozadoo15
Nov 18th, 2004, 09:39 PM
it's a good decision because it's fair and objective. hopefully the year end #1 will always be on the cover.
plus, that's such a cute pic of lindsay.

AimeeLizAni
Nov 18th, 2004, 10:18 PM
This is so dumb...You guys can argue about it all you want but will it change anything? No. Lindsay is going to be on the cover whether the Masha fans like it or not.

~RedRose~
Nov 18th, 2004, 10:28 PM
All my bitching paid off :) ......... maybe I should bump the thread where I was going crazy over it :lol:

Honey
Nov 18th, 2004, 11:15 PM
Great decision!

Fingon
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:14 AM
ok where to begin here
never once did i use the word brainwashed...you talk about tradition and thats why the majors are held in high esteem...ill be the first to admit that your viewpoint has the bigger majority but that doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

the majors are part of tennis, without the major it wouldn't be tennis, it's like to say to play tennis without racquets. I personally would be a lot less interested

the establishment in the us focuses the most on american players and thats why the ratings are poor..i dont have to understand tenns to know its wrong..

what does it have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about GS vs # 1, what does the ratings or american players have to do with that?

and if i went by tennis traditions then as a middle class male i shouldnt be watching because tennis has the tradition of being rich only/white. those traditions are changing, so why cant the GS/Number 1 debate change?

there are things that don't change, that's why they are tradition, if they change there would be something else.

Also the money IS a good idea because you just said if you paid the tennis player he would ride a bike so if you pay the year end number 1 he will care..

I don't know in what planet you live, but in Earth 10 million dollars is a lot of money, 10 times more than the biggest prize money, so it's ridiculous. you just write a cheque? where does the money come from? no sponsor would give that amount of money, not even dream of it, and especially not for something they get nothing in return. In a tournament they have exposure.
and, I don't see why they should try to promote the # 1 status at all?, 10 million dollars is like the prize money of all tier 1s excluding Miami and IW combined, no, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

how is it that the masters series wants to diminish top players pulling out? by offering more money of course ..as an aside, if i had the money and ran a tournament the same weeks as wimbledon, but gave 10 million dollars to the winner, how many of the top players would come....some would wouldnt they?

yes, if I have winds I could fly, really, are you in drugs? 10 million dollars is ten times the larget money prize, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Plus, they increased the prize money for the YEC to match the US Open, and guess what? it's not the US Open, not even close, not even a mini US Open, The GSs don't need to do anything for players to show up, just exist, not all players go for the prize money since half of them lose in the first round and many even before.

TV networks fight for the GSs, they give a shit about the other tournaments, and that's not in the US, it's worldwide, and believe me, that won't change.

so much for tradition..if tradition was so important that number would be zero but it wouldnt..i respect tradition more than anyone but traditions should/do change (if you were running football in the 60's you wouldn;t have agreed to the superbowl because the AFL was seen as inferior and not being worthy opponents but look how football grew by taking a chance with the game..people told superbowl proponets that they were making a mistake)..

I don't know anything about football, I hate football, unlike you, I don't give opinion about something I have no clue about.

the rankings have been around thirty years, they should be a newer better tradition. (as an aside, wasn't it tradition for all the top players to play davis/fed cup, but now thay pull out without any difficulty)

traditions are not impossed, they have to grow in people's heart, how do you expect a number, the number 1 to get popular support?

i dont have to understand tennis to know that tennis is a niche sport because it refuses to listen to new ideas.

that would be to change it, anyway, the rankings are not a good marketing tool, nobody gives a damn for them really, people won't pay to see who the # 1 is and no matter what you do, that won't change, people pays to see matches, to see a player lifting a trophy, not to see what a computer says.

and i may not be a tennis person but i pay my 5 dollars extra to get the tennis channel and i get up in the morning to watch the Kremlin Cup before college football.
so?

im up watching tournaments no one else would, going against tradition of ignoring non slams

who said that tradition is ignoring non-gs? you don't even know what tradition means do you?, what I said is the GS are special because of tradition, nobody say that you have to ignore the other tournaments to go with the tradition, and this is not about other tournaments but the # 1 ranking.


(and thats what happens when you ignore non slams players/fans dont care either)..i am a sports fan and i want tennis to grow...why is it that alll my friends will travel all over america and canada to watch baseball and wrestling but not even touch tennis? because of tradition...

not because of tradition, tennis is a sport that is hard for tv, because matches don't have a fix length, and because they can be boring for non-fans, no all matches are exiting. Team sports are different. It's a matter of popularity, and the GS are popular, the TV networks don't see enough income in broadcasting other events, that has absolutely nothing to do with the # 1 ranking, again, casual tennis fans give a shit about the # 1, like casual golf fans give a shit for golf rankings, if you try to base the marketing in statistics then you are assured to fail. People don't want number, they want action.

i love tennis and as a consumer, my idea may help it grow, unless you wantto stay in that rich, lilywhite nitch world where only the elite watched...trust me tennis will be better off if 60000 people are watching, even if it means less tradition...baseball gas tradition but the DH rule and the wild card are not as old as baseball but people have accepted them, no brainwashing. stick and ball sports have 1 champion and NASCAR has 1 champion, and my friends, if they watched tennis will want 1 champion.
as I said, if it means changing the nature of the sport, I prefer it not to have many viewers, it would be popular but I wouldn't be among their fans.

Again, I don't care about Nascar or baseball, so I don't have an opinion.

there is no champion in tennis, because there isn't a championships, is that so difficult to understand? it isn't like the NBA where there is a championships with every team playing against every other, in tennis there are separate tournament, in different countries that have no relation between them, there is no a champion, and the ranking never intended to measure that, they wouldn't be a ranking then would they? they would be a ahem champsionships.

and your idea is to give 10 million dollars for the player that finishes # 1? great idea, who is going to put the money? 10 million dollars for nothing? what are you going to do, have a party and show it on tv? do you think anybody would give a damn?

see maybe i dont understand tennis but the tennis people dont understand trying to grow the sport to appeal to the middle/lower classes.

that phrase makes so little sense that it's not worth answering, if you don't understand tennis, you don't know what you are talking about

as for the peter korda argument, of course he wouldn't trade because the number one ranking doesnt gettthe respect it deserves, which in MY opinion should be greater.

Sometimes a little outsider perspective wont hurt...
in your opinion, judging for your arguments it's worth very little, and who mentioned Petr Kodra anyway?

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:29 AM
There is really nothing to argue about!!!

Its not even an issue that Maria is gonna be the face of the book before.
I really dnt get the title of this thread since WTA never mentioned before that Masha is gonna appear on the cover.
Lindsay deserve to be on the cover no questions, but to say Maria is replaced by her is totally a crap!

Once again another attempt at downgrading Maria Sharapova!

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:35 AM
Junex the wta site had b4 the Preorder ur WTA/ATP 2005 book. It has a little icon which flashed a pic of roger and then a pic of maria over and over.
It was clear that Maria was their original intended cover.

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:39 AM
All my bitching paid off :) ......... maybe I should bump the thread where I was going crazy over it :lol:


yeah right... :rolleyes:

whoever said anyway that Masha is gonna appear on the cover of the Tennis guide!

Poor you!

You are the only whose pre-empting the move and yet you are the one that's been saying a lot about it!

AlexB
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:40 AM
fingon, never in there did i say get rid of the majors...the other events do have a lot to do with the number one ranking because they pay off points as well...as the the money, NASCAR payed almost nothing when they statred now the champions get millions..10 million is not a hard and fast number just a hypothetical..if you grow tennis and more people pay to see it the purses go up...any way you said it best "as I said, if it means changing the nature of the sport, I prefer it not to have many viewers, it would be popular but I wouldn't be among their fans." in other words your argument is to keep it a niche sport so long as the few are happy.....ok i wont argue that

and i dont buy the its hard for tv argument because all other sports are hard for tv too because thay can go over their alloted time..if your product is hot people will watch and pay

there is no championship in tennis, but the first step is to get one, and what better way to start than with the rankings...my argument overall is ithe GS will be there always, and you should want to win them, but since we have rankings (standings) they should take precedence. it may not happen overnight bit you cant say for certainty that in 10 20 or 30 years people wont accept it and then it BECOMES tradition .argument that the tournaments are in different countries shouldnt matter (and in the NFL all the teams dont play every other team there are 32 teams and only 16 games to play so you dont need to play everyone else) the points are consistent is all that matters...GS get the most points and lesser tiers get less points

the only reason there is no championship is because traditionalists refuse to even budge when it comes to GS (and if im not mistaken werent these tournaments closed to pros until the open era..since you dont know football, lets try tennis...how many people were against that back then, and those fools argued tradition too. lets go back to amateurs because amateurs have been allowed for more years than the open era..the open era is 36years old amateur era more than 90...if you argue tradition then the open era SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.. they were wrong.if tennis can change that way why cant it change by making the number one ranking more important and yes many people wont accept it but what if many more fans, or new fans do? its not as idiotic as you make it seem )
Tradition should not be a crutch to stopping progress, some tradition is good some can be altered.

btw the peter Korda was the next reply following yours

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:41 AM
yeah right... :rolleyes:

whoever said anyway that Masha is gonna appear on the cover of the Tennis guide!

Poor you!

You are the only whose pre-empting the move and yet you are the one that's been saying a lot about it!
what are you talking about? English isn't ur first language is it ...

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Junex the wta site had b4 the Preorder ur WTA/ATP 2005 book. It has a little icon which flashed a pic of roger and then a pic of maria over and over.
It was clear that Maria was their original intended cover.


I know & i have seen that but it just an ad for pre-ordering!

whatever the WTA's reasons for using Masha, nobody of us really don't know. The only thing clear is that they never-ever mentioned anything about Maria gracing the cover.

What more, I am sure Maria couldn't care less of being in the cover! so i dnt really get why you keep bitching about it!

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:43 AM
what are you talking about? English isn't ur first language is it ...


:tape:

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:53 AM
:tape:
I still don't have a clue wat u r on about. Do you realise I didnt start this thread?

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:59 AM
All my bitching paid off :) ......... maybe I should bump the thread where I was going crazy over it :lol:


I am talking about this post where you apparently felt as if you have been so blessed that all your "bitching" about Maria being in the cover of the Tennis Guide.

My point is, why the need to make so much noise about an issue that doesn't even exist.
Nobody said that Masha is gonna appear on the cover!

houseoflords
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:59 AM
First off, Maria did not cleary have the best year of anyone. She wasn't very good at the Australian Open and quite frankly she sucked at the US Open, I was there I know. She had an excellent year but she also lost to Mashona Washington and the two tournaments she won in Asia were more like challengers than they were Tier III's. Lindsay's year was a more consistent and won some big tourneys leading up to the US Open.

The #1 should be on the cover. The ATP has been doing it that way for years. It eliminates the debate of who should be on the cover. Make it to #1 and you're on the cover. It is as simple as that.

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:01 AM
I am talking about this post where you apparently felt as if you have been so blessed that all your "bitching" about Maria being in the cover of the Tennis Guide.

My point is, why the need to make so much noise about an issue that doesn't even exist.
Nobody said that Masha is gonna appear on the cover!
:rolleyes: if they were planning to put Lindsay on the cover she wouldve been in the advert instead of Maria.

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:03 AM
The #1 should be on the cover. The ATP has been doing it that way for years. It eliminates the debate of who should be on the cover. Make it to #1 and you're on the cover. It is as simple as that.


Once and for all, please stop this debate over who is gonna be on the cover!
rightfully it should be the #1 and right now it is Lindsay.
Maria is just being used as a marketing tool here and in no way there was even an issue she is gonna appear as the cover girl.
Its just pathetic that this issue created such a big buzz over here, its not even existing.

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:06 AM
:rolleyes: if they were planning to put Lindsay on the cover she wouldve been in the advert instead of Maria.


Because the cover should bear the picture of the YE#1.
like the previous year where it had Roddick & Justine.

When the ad was posted, its not yet known who is gonna be the YE#1.
It could have been Mauresmo or Myskina or Lindsay.
WTA chose to put Masha in the ad because at this point she is the one that sells the most. It doesn't mean she is gonna be the cover girl!
The space is for the YE#1 and thats is Lindsay for 2004!

LindsayRulez
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:09 AM
now I'll have to buy one! ;) GO LINDSAY!

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:10 AM
Because the cover should bear the picture of the YE#1.
like the previous year where it had Roddick & Justine.

When the ad was posted, its not yet known who is gonna be the YE#1.
It could have been Mauresmo or Myskina or Lindsay.
WTA chose to put Masha in the ad because at this point she is the one that sells the most. It doesn't mean she is gonna be the cover girl!
The space is for the YE#1 and thats is Lindsay for 2004!
who says the YE#1 always goes on the cover .... now who's making assumptions.

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:10 AM
omg it was hardly a big buzz at all :lol:

talk about overreacting.


Who is overreacting?

I am just saying that there is no point of dissing Maria over this Tennis Guide cover issue.

Fingon
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:11 AM
fingon, never in there did i say get rid of the majors...
I never said that you said that you wanted to get rid of the majors.

the other events do have a lot to do with the number one ranking because they pay off points as well...
what you don't get is, people don't care who the # 1 is, they go to watch matches, that's all, the same way that a lot of people that go and watch a basketball game don't know the standings, or the shooting average, and don't give a damn, they just want to watch and entertaining game, and yes, that's the stupid tv trying to sell statistics because they have nothing better to say, a sports is primarily a sport, not a number's game, the sport has to be visually appealing

as the the money, NASCAR payed almost nothing when they statred now the champions get millions..10 million is not a hard and fast number just a hypothetical..

10 million IS as hard, it's nearly the money the Grand Slams pay in TOTAL, to all the players, that's with all the sponsors, all the tv rights, all the attendance, 10 million is not unrealistic, it's absolutely ridiculous.

And trust me, no sponsor would pay even $100 if they don't get anything in exchange, the # 1 doesn't have a commercial value, not because of tradition, but because people want to watch matches, not a ceremony.
of course you can't, if they changed basketball to instead of putting a ball in a basket you have to kick it into the goal line, even if that makes it more popular it wouldn't be very good would it?

And tennis will never, ever be as popular as other sports, because the way the sport is, unless you want to change the rules like to play 6 against 6 or something like that, it's an individual sport by nature and many people don't like that, plus if the match is bad it's bad, there are not other players that can step up. It's slow between points, the ball is small (hard to see on tv), the matches don't have a fix duration, it's not what the tv networks want.

[quote]
and i dont buy the its hard for tv argument because all other sports are hard for tv too because thay can go over their alloted time..if your product is hot people will watch and pay

well, you would be fired in a second if you worked in a tv network if you don't understand that.

there is no championship in tennis, but the first step is to get one, and what better way to start than with the rankings...my argument overall is ithe GS will be there always, and you should want to win them, but since we have rankings (standings) they should take precedence. that the tournaments are in different countries shouldnt matter (and in the NFL all the teams dont play every other team there are 32 teams and only 16 games to play so you dont need to play everyone else) the points are consistent is all that matters...GS get the most points and lesser tiers get less points


really, it's not point arguing, you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about, you don't even now how tournaments are played, and you don't decide what takes precedence, people do.

And again, I don't give a shit for the NFL, I couldn't care less, I don't watch it, I don't know how it's organized, I don't even know if they are still playing or not.

And btw, that's the way it is now, GS get more points, lesser tournaments get less points.


the only reason there is no championship is because traditionalists refuse to even budge when it comes to GS (and if im not mistaken werent these tournaments closed to pros until the open era..since you dont know football, lets try tennis...how many people were against that back then, and those fools argued tradition too..they were wrong.if tennis can change that way why cant it change by maiking the number one ranking more important and yes many people wont accept it but what if many more fans, or new fans do? its not as idiotic as you make it seem )
Tradition should not be a crutch to stopping progress, some tradition is good some can be altered.

btw the peter Korda was the next reply following yours
yes, that's why they call the period after open era. I don't say you can't change anything, but you can't go against the nature of the sport, and tennis is not a sport like others, same way golf isn't, you have the same situation, they are different types of sports, you can't have a championships, that would not work. And it does matter it's in different countries.

You don't have championships in many sports, because the way the sport is played doesn't allow to that. Believe me, that won't change, not tomorrow.

And back to your idea of money, they tried that, it was called the GS cup, not 10 millions but a lot of money, and you know what? it didn't work.

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Who is overreacting?

I am just saying that there is no point of dissing Maria over this Tennis Guide cover issue.
:rolleyes: u said there was a big buzz on the board. There was hardly a buzz at all. Like one other thread which was basically 2 ppl arguing for 2 pages.

YOU are overreacting when you said that. Meanwhile Im not getting in an argument with someone who doesnt even speak english properly.

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:13 AM
who says the YE#1 always goes on the cover .... now who's making assumptions.

who says it shouldn't be?

you can ask the WTA or the publisher for that matter.
I have done my own share of research, you should do your own.
maybe next you can bitch about things you knew very well not just soemthing you obviously have no idea about.

AlexB
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:13 AM
but in 10 20 or thirty years it may be accepted and become tradition...it wont happen overnight

you can watch basketball just to watch but the vast majority follow these standings stats/i dont know anyone who just goes to the game..my friends are all diehards


and im not saying to change the rules of tennis my argument still stands, if a product is hot people will watch no matter what..if tennis was a s popular as the nfl nobody would be arguing the tv thing, baseball are hard to see on tv too but that doesnt stop viewers, hockey in the us gets the same we cant see the puck, but check Canada's ratings...the tv thing is only an easy excuse not to air it all cop outs..if tennis was hot people will watch its that simple (and dont forget the US open series, the moment you put some standings on tournaments and ADVERTISED and MARKETED this, the ratings went up just like that - because there was some end goal to some tournaments. imagine how much more tennis can grow when a fan can follow the season progress)

also if tennis gets popular you could make that money in just attendance money.

NASCAR is an individual sport that runs past tv time but look at all those full stands and hefty ratings...tennis works if is done right

and things like the YEC will work look at la slowly growing, you need patience, these things dont happen overnight....thats why increasing attendance first then sponsors second

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:15 AM
:rolleyes: u said there was a big buzz on the board. There was hardly a buzz at all. Like one other thread which was basically 2 ppl arguing for 2 pages.

YOU are overreacting when you said that. Meanwhile Im not getting in an argument with someone who doesnt even speak english properly.


You are very welcome!
It your prerogative.

jacs
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:20 AM
Why does everything have to be an argument in GM?

Junex
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:26 AM
:rolleyes: u said there was a big buzz on the board. There was hardly a buzz at all. Like one other thread which was basically 2 ppl arguing for 2 pages.

YOU are overreacting when you said that. Meanwhile Im not getting in an argument with someone who doesnt even speak english properly.


And you ahve given me a red dot!

whaddaya know! :p

~RedRose~
Nov 19th, 2004, 01:47 AM
that was like before I even started with you :rolleyes: .... but I should've known ... you seem to be a bit slow.