PDA

View Full Version : There needs to be a limit in how many tourneys can be played a year for each player


Rafe306
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:24 PM
That's the final solution to cut down the amount of injuries. I would make the cut-off at around 25..Anyone else agree??

goldenlox
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:33 PM
I don't agree. If a player is losing early most weeks, and most players do not reach the quarters, they should be allowed to enter all they want.

The problem is that the top players should be allowed to re-do their schedule, so they can take more weeks off.
Instead, the WTA tries to force the top players to not withdraw.

Shonami Slam
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:35 PM
because Serena, Kirilenko, Kuznetsova, chakvatadze , Pierce, likhovtseva, na li, venus, davenport (all of whom withdrew or retired this week) have less than that anyway.
huntuchova retired due to heat ilness, not injury - and she has 26 tournies.

no - it's a bad idea. garrigues can take it. groenfeld too. jankovic is still ok. petrova as well. randrianteffy and craybas live from it. same for castano and brandi.
evry player builds her own scheduale - i think they know what they are doing better than a worried ristriction.

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:36 PM
if the EU was in control of the WTA then its likely that they would be forced to do so :tape:

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:36 PM
That's the final solution to cut down the amount of injuries. I would make the cut-off at around 25..Anyone else agree??


who the hell are you, the governor? It's a frigging joke to try and tell grown professionals how much they are allowed to work.

Rafe306
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
who the hell are you, the governor? It's a frigging joke to try and tell grown professionals how much they are allowed to work.

I'm not trying to be communist. It was just a thought geez :rolleyes:

tatianaishott22
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM
who the hell are you, the governor? It's a frigging joke to try and tell grown professionals how much they are allowed to work.

Haha Nice .... Thats true ... They dont need a limit thats why when they get really tired they just drop out of a Tournament ...they dont need a limit they arent little babies ... i also think when your under 18 the WTA should still let them play a full schedule its not like they go to school or nothing thats why they get schooled on the Computer or by a coach or traveling teacher ..

*JR*
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:45 PM
who the hell are you, the governor? It's a frigging joke to try and tell grown professionals how much they are allowed to work.
You might have a point here, IF.... they didn't use the "Best 17" system, where everything else doesn't count. Like if someone we're both quite familiar with ;) plays 25 plus events this year (maybe based on a Criminal Command) :eek: she'll have under 70% of them create her year end ranking. But somebody with a more reasonable 20 will have 85% of her events "count".

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:53 PM
You might have a point here, IF.... they didn't use the "Best 17" system, where everything else doesn't count. Like if someone we're both quite familiar with ;) plays 25 plus events this year (maybe based on a Criminal Command) :eek: she'll have under 70% of them create her year end ranking. But somebody with a more reasonable 20 will have 85% of her events "count".


you forget that tournies outside the "best 17" DO count, and count a lot, for the lower-ranked players, who have a lot of first round losses AND get much-needed paychecks from every tournie they play.

I like the current system because it pays off for players who schedule smart and don't overextend themselves. Patty's rise back up the rankings has a lot to do with her scheduling better than almost anybody else on the tour.

thelittlestelf
Aug 19th, 2005, 03:55 PM
I don't agree. IMO over 25 tournaments is way too much playing, but everyone has their own preference.

Rafe306
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:01 PM
I mean it's scary that this whole situation is happening right now. I mean this US Open will be dissapointing if quite a number of players withdraw. A resolution needs to be made!

*JR*
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:04 PM
you forget that tournies outside the "best 17" DO count, and count a lot, for the lower-ranked players, who have a lot of first round losses AND get much-needed paychecks from every tournie they play.

I like the current system because it pays off for players who schedule smart and don't overextend themselves. Patty's rise back up the rankings has a lot to do with her scheduling better than almost anybody else on the tour.
OK, so if you make lets say "all but 3" count (those to not penalize someone returning from an injury for getting knocked out early) it still lets the "journeywoman" types play as many events as they want. But it doesn't distort things in terms of rankings. If the Strange Suissie plays 26 draws this year, she'll have 9 "mulligans", triple the number as someone who plays 20. Is that fair?
:confused:

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:09 PM
If the Strange Suissie plays 26 draws this year, she'll have 9 "mulligans", triple the number as someone who plays 20. Is that fair?
:confused:


sure, it's fair, it's the same for everybody. It's a system that rewards players who stay healthy and schedule timely rest periods while still playing a lot of tournaments. That's part of being a professional. It's a level playing field.

Larrybidd
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:41 PM
I like the current system because it pays off for players who schedule smart and don't overextend themselves. Patty's rise back up the rankings has a lot to do with her scheduling better than almost anybody else on the tour.

LOL. So tennis is a test of administrative skills now. I think most people would like it if the rankings reflected the ability to play tennis, not keep a schedule.

I don't have any great wisdom on how the ranking system could be used to not encourage overplaying, because it certainly does. The problem is trying to balance the interests of the top 36 players, and keep them healthy, with players who may not even survive qualifying for many event during the year. Its almost irreconcilable.

One thing for sure, the season should end no later than October 15th, or maybe October 1st. That's enough.

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:50 PM
LOL. So tennis is a test of administrative skills now. I think most people would like it if the rankings reflected the ability to play tennis, not keep a schedule.
.


and for the most part, that's what the rankings do reflect, and part of that is being smart enough to know where to play. "Administrative skills" has no relevance to the topic whatsoever.

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 04:53 PM
I don't have any great wisdom on how the ranking system could be used to not encourage overplaying, because it certainly does. The problem is trying to balance the interests of the top 36 players, and keep them healthy, with players who may not even survive qualifying for many event during the year. Its almost irreconcilable.
.


Nobody else has that wisdom either. This paragraph sums up why the schedule is the way it is.

Larrybidd
Aug 19th, 2005, 05:07 PM
and for the most part, that's what the rankings do reflect, and part of that is being smart enough to know where to play. "Administrative skills" has no relevance to the topic whatsoever.

Picking a schedule is not a tennis related skill. An agent could do it, and most agents/sponsers do have a strong influence on player scheduling. If the ranking system "rewards" the people who do this well (as the post to which I reffered suggested), then the ranking system is screwed up.

Again my point is simple: players should be ranked based solely on there tennis playing, not how smart they can play the system. This may not be possible, but it should be the goal, no? Nobody should be pleased that the system rewards something not tennis related.

Most top players choose to play less, but they get penalized for this by the ranking system, as well as leave money on the table. The Williams' can afford to take the penalty, in ranking and money lost, as they have lots of outside income. Lots of top players don't have that luxury.

vogus
Aug 19th, 2005, 05:14 PM
Picking a schedule is not a tennis related skill. An agent could do it, and most agents/sponsers do have a strong influence on player scheduling. If the ranking system "rewards" the people who do this well (as the post to which I reffered suggested), then the ranking system is screwed up.

Again my point is simple: players should be ranked based solely on there tennis playing, not how smart they can play the system. This may not be possible, but it should be the goal, no? Nobody should be pleased that the system rewards something not tennis related.
.


it's all part of being a professional player. It's not like your life as a pro is unconnected with your activities and preparation off the court. It's a full time career. Picking a smart schedule is an essential skill related to the job. Ask any pro tennis player and they will tell you that.

Rafe306
Aug 19th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I mean look what happened to Hingis. She had to play a Lot of tournaments to keep her ranking at number 1. Look what happened to her in the end: retirement.

goldenlox
Aug 19th, 2005, 07:37 PM
I mean look what happened to Hingis. She had to play a Lot of tournaments to keep her ranking at number 1. Look what happened to her in the end: retirement.There are going to be injuries in tennis. They all play with pain.
Hingis could try to come back now if she wanted. She played Pattaya City this year.

griffin
Aug 19th, 2005, 07:41 PM
Picking a schedule is not a tennis related skill. An agent could do it, and most agents/sponsers do have a strong influence on player scheduling. If the ranking system "rewards" the people who do this well (as the post to which I reffered suggested), then the ranking system is screwed up.


There is not a ranking system in the world that would not provide opportunities for players to work it with a schedule, if they choose.

fammmmedspin
Aug 20th, 2005, 12:12 AM
That's the final solution to cut down the amount of injuries. I would make the cut-off at around 25..Anyone else agree??

Which tour are you watching.No one is anywhere near 25 tournaments. Injuries at the moment have nothing to do with playing too much - the top players are all effectively playing reduced schedules.Venus and Serena played little before getting injured and less since. Justine's virus won't let her play as much as she used to. Momo is taking great chunks of the year off. Kim has learnt her lesson. Lindsay's damage came after not playing. Nastya's shoulder is long term. Sveta is playing less because she is doing less well. Arguably one or two are actually playing too little for their bodies to sustain the shock when they do. Its not how often you play - and if you don't go far in tournaments even 25 tournaments wouldn't amount to many matches - but how you play and how lucky you are doing it.

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 12:30 AM
That's the final solution to cut down the amount of injuries. I would make the cut-off at around 25..Anyone else agree??

No there does not, unless you want them all to sue the tour for "loss of earnings" if they wanna play more than the number of touneys allowed!

Plus most of the top players don't play 25 tourneys anyway, so you'd just be hurting the lower ranked players who play more challengers!

*JR*
Aug 20th, 2005, 01:06 AM
No there does not, unless you want them all to sue the tour for "loss of earnings" if they wanna play more than the number of touneys allowed!

Plus most of the top players don't play 25 tourneys anyway, so you'd just be hurting the lower ranked players who play more challengers!
As I said in post #12 ITT, you can simply make all but about 3 "freebies" count by using a divisor, so few would ovaplay. And the ITF runs the Challengers anyway. With a shorter WTA season, there'd be some @ a higher purse level (certainly 100K or more) for the non-elite players to earn checks @ while the WTA was off. And re. exo's the "name players" would of course do, those are "one match and done".

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 01:11 AM
As I said in post #12 ITT, you can simply make all but about 3 "freebies" count by using a divisor, so few would ovaplay. And the ITF runs the Challengers anyway. With a shorter WTA season, there'd be some @ a higher purse level (certainly 100K or more) for the non-elite players to earn checks @ while the WTA was off. And re. exo's the "name players" would of course do, those are "one match and done".

umm OK - I never commented on what you said anyway so... :shrug: And your comments there don't have anything to do with what I actually said! :nerner: I was directly referring to what the thread starter had said!

*JR*
Aug 20th, 2005, 01:39 AM
umm OK - I never commented on what you said anyway so... :shrug: And your comments there don't have anything to do with what I actually said! :nerner: I was directly referring to what the thread starter had said!
Its related in that "name" players wouldn't have 2B barred from ova-playing if almost everything was divided for ranking purposes. (Plus, I got to take a couple of totally gratuitous cheap shots @ PP and her CC). :p

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 01:49 AM
Its related in that "name" players wouldn't have 2B barred from ova-playing if almost everything was divided for ranking purposes. (Plus, I got to take a couple of totally gratuitous cheap shots @ PP and her CC). :p

I am honestly not in the fucking mood for any of your shit today! Just leave it for a fucking change! :fiery:

sorry to everyone else for the language, but this guy has been bugging me all goddamn year!

*JR*
Aug 20th, 2005, 02:51 PM
I am honestly not in the fucking mood for any of your shit today! Just leave it for a fucking change! :fiery:

sorry to everyone else for the language, but this guy has been bugging me all goddamn year!
Sarah, I'm sorry if you were having a bad day, but this attack on me is ridiculous. Clearly, my words "totally gratuitous cheap shot" were poking fun @ myself, not you! :silly: And the generalization is a bunch of crap because ITT: LINK (http://wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=185286&page=2) you were pleased by the way I recognized you as the most prolific "Dutch poster", leading a couple of actual ones to recognize your "quasi-Dutch" identity.

Look, I don't expect you (or most posters, frankly) to give a good GD about Patty & Rainer, and am glad that you've @ least let her sort of "drop off your radar screen" in favor of Misa (a great kid, despite her "questionable" father). But still I'll take occasional jibes @ PP as long as she's with the CC. (It clearly wasn't @ you). And my post about how many matches played count in the rankings definitely relates to the topic, as more of the higher ranked ones would limit their own play.

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 02:55 PM
yeah I was having a bad day, but you still always seem to have a go at ME in particular in any Patty topic even when I haven't even been posting in it...and i'm just totally sick of it. I mean I hardly even cheer for Patty on here anymore! I don't post in her topics, coz I know you will always be there. There is one thing we agree on with her though... we both "dislike" Rainer... but when it comes to Patty, just leave me out of it OK?

Oh and btw, as I have stated before... Patty HAS NEVR been my #1 fave. Before, she was always #2 fave behind Coetzer, and now she's still #2 behind Misa...

Experimentee
Aug 20th, 2005, 03:01 PM
They should all be free to make their own schedules, and should be smart enough to realise what is good for their own bodies. Some players like playing lots of tournaments, and they can take it, and others cant.
Its funny how whenever a player pulls out of a tournament (like Venus and Serena) they get bashed, but when players play and get injured, everyone starts saying they should play less tournaments :rolleyes:

*JR*
Aug 20th, 2005, 04:08 PM
yeah I was having a bad day, but you still always seem to have a go at ME in particular in any Patty topic even when I haven't even been posting in it...and i'm just totally sick of it. I mean I hardly even cheer for Patty on here anymore! I don't post in her topics, coz I know you will always be there. There is one thing we agree on with her though... we both "dislike" Rainer... but when it comes to Patty, just leave me out of it OK?

Oh and btw, as I have stated before... Patty HAS NEVR been my #1 fave. Before, she was always #2 fave behind Coetzer, and now she's still #2 behind Misa...

Honestly Sarah, when a person says "Plus, I got to take a couple of totally gratuitous cheap shots @ (whoever), that is self-deprecating humor. (Had I said thay YOU did, that would "having a go" @ you). Its not even a matter of "well, she's not so bad because she doesn't like Rainer", as you'd be entitled to (though I compliment you for not caring for him).

Its about GM being a place for "sometimes contentious" arguments. And unlike posters who often call others morons or whatever, I don't (except for obvious trolls, racists, homophobes, etc). I have every right to feel that PP is contemptible, and say so, as she's a public figure. (You, el_gaucho, Urockpatty, etc. have every right to say that I'm wrong, and why).

Do recall that it took me a good while to convince you ardent Misa fans that my calling her father "Petr the Terrible" in no way makes me not like HER. And I know, there's some debate about his past. In any case, we choose our life partners, but not our parents. I (regrettably) "went after you" once about PP, and apologize for that, however. Peace. :)

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Honestly Sarah, when a person says "Plus, I got to take a couple of totally gratuitous cheap shots @ (whoever), that is self-deprecating humor. (Had I said thay YOU did, that would "having a go" @ you). Its not even a matter of "well, she's not so bad because she doesn't like Rainer", as you'd be entitled to (though I compliment you for not caring for him).

Its about GM being a place for "sometimes contentious" arguments. And unlike posters who often call others morons or whatever, I don't (except for obvious trolls, racists, homophobes, etc). I have every right to feel that PP is contemptible, and say so, as she's a public figure. (You, el_gaucho, Urockpatty, etc. have every right to say that I'm wrong, and why).

Do recall that it took me a good while to convince you ardent Misa fans that my calling her father "Petr the Terrible" in no way makes me not like HER. And I know, there's some debate about his past. In any case, we choose our life partners, but not our parents. I (regrettably) "went after you" once about PP, and apologize for that, however. Peace. :)

You always bring me into comversations about Patty in threads I have never even posted in...and I don't see why. I never said you have to like her, just stop brining me into the conversation when you talk about her...is that such a hard thing to do?

And as for you calling Misa's Dad "Petr the terrible" I never said anything about that at all, coz I never followed Richard and so I didn't know what had happened there, and i never said it did mean that you didn't like Misa... :shrug:

Linda was the one you were "discussing" that with, not me.

Andy T
Aug 20th, 2005, 04:46 PM
As the players most prone to injuries never get anywhere near the 25 tournaments played mark - and play well under 17 as often as not - I doubt if this would make any difference. I'd go for a reduction in the number of hardcourt events as my first priority, starting with the elimination of IW and the laying of green clay in Miami, followed by a return to grass in Australia and an increase in the use of carpet indoors.

DutchieGirl
Aug 20th, 2005, 04:50 PM
As the players most prone to injuries never get anywhere near the 25 tournaments played mark - and play well under 17 as often as not - I doubt if this would make any difference. I'd go for a reduction in the number of hardcourt events as my first priority, starting with the elimination of IW and the laying of green clay in Miami, followed by a return to grass in Australia and an increase in the use of carpet indoors.


:help: Grass in Australia? :eek: God no!

*JR*
Aug 20th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Sarah, I suggest you search GM (I don't knock players in their forums or tournament cheering threads) for the words Cuckoo, Peppermint, Suissie, Baech, Criminal, Conman, and Felon. All are part of those double-cap "names" I use for Patty and Rainer, the first 4 for her, the last 3 for him. Please see how many times you (or other posters for the most part) are ever mentioned, please. On the other hand, if you search GM for JR, you'll find defensive fans of hers (not you) ;) bitching a lot about me insulting, OMG, a Top 20 WTA player. :eek:

propi
Aug 20th, 2005, 06:25 PM
Each players should be free to play whatever she wants.

DutchieGirl
Aug 21st, 2005, 01:43 AM
Sarah, I suggest you search GM (I don't knock players in their forums or tournament cheering threads) for the words Cuckoo, Peppermint, Suissie, Baech, Criminal, Conman, and Felon. All are part of those double-cap "names" I use for Patty and Rainer, the first 4 for her, the last 3 for him. Please see how many times you (or other posters for the most part) are ever mentioned, please. On the other hand, if you search GM for JR, you'll find defensive fans of hers (not you) ;) bitching a lot about me insulting, OMG, a Top 20 WTA player. :eek:

I am not doing any search, because I never said you do it in EVERY post you make. But JR, you have specifically PMed me the link to posts you have written with reference tro me in them, so you can't deny that you DO it...I didn't say all the time, and all I am asking is for you to STOP it? Geez is it so goddamn hard to understand that I want to be left out of your arguments with other Patty fans? :rolleyes: