PDA

View Full Version : Why isn't Indian Wells a required event?


maccardel
Mar 6th, 2006, 02:51 AM
Why is Nasdaq a required event and IW not? Is there a difference in prize money and tier status. Aren't they both the same status? Is the Williams' incident the only thing that separates both IW and Miami? I can't seem to understand the difference. What is it?

tennisjay
Mar 6th, 2006, 02:59 AM
Why is Nasdaq a required event and IW not? Is there a difference in prize money and tier status. Aren't they both the same status? Is the Williams' incident the only thing that separates both IW and Miami? I can't seem to understand the difference. What is it?


I believe there was a bit of repect lost after the whole WS incident, by both fans and players thats why it has went down hill. I notice ESPN will only show the 2nd wk of play on the womens side but 1st and 2nd wk on the mens meaning they don't to televise such a weak womens tournment. I hope they either move the tournment of get rid of it all together.

maccardel
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:09 AM
I believe there was a bit of repect lost after the whole WS incident, by both fans and players thats why it has went down hill. I notice ESPN will only show the 2nd wk of play on the womens side but 1st and 2nd wk on the mens meaning they don't to televise such a weak womens tournment. I hope they either move the tournment of get rid of it all together.

But where would you move it to? Shouldn't it be a tier II tourney instead?

tennisjay
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:12 AM
But where would you move it to? Shouldn't it be a tier II tourney instead?


I would move it to Texas, they don't have a women Tournment.

StarDuvallGrant
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:12 AM
I believe there was a bit of repect lost after the whole WS incident, by both fans and players thats why it has went down hill. I notice ESPN will only show the 2nd wk of play on the womens side but 1st and 2nd wk on the mens meaning they don't to televise such a weak womens tournment. I hope they either move the tournment of get rid of it all together.

I doubt this. Didn't Lindsay say this was her favorite tournament? I didn't see Kim boycotting the tourney after seeing first hand the treatment Serena got in the final. Every year they comment that the attendence is nice so the fans in that area still love it in spite of that horrible spectacle some fans produced.

FaceyFacem
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:16 AM
i think it's just rough having 2 taxing tier Is back to back...that's why people don't always play in both (lindsay usually only plays IW instead of miami, etc etc) at this point, miami does have more prize money so that's a reason it's the mandatory tier I, but also, wta is just testing this new system of having mandatory events...so they just chose 1 for now

tennisjay
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:17 AM
But where would you move it to? Shouldn't it be a tier II tourney instead?


I think everything should remain the same except location. Move it, Cal have to many tournments already.

tennisjay
Mar 6th, 2006, 03:19 AM
I doubt this. Didn't Lindsay say this was her favorite tournament? I didn't see Kim boycotting the tourney after seeing first hand the treatment Serena got in the final. Every year they comment that the attendence is nice so the fans in that area still love it in spite of that horrible spectacle some fans produced.


Lindsay only likes it because it's about the only tournment she can win. The two players who stopped her from winning another Grandslam won't go anywhere near it. :lol:

Jeff
Mar 6th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Indian Wells definetly gets a bad rep. It really is a very well run tournament, in a great location, which is why it is true that a lot of players have stated in their press conference that it is one of their favorite events. The facility is great, and I generally find the people who go there to be very nice. It's unfortunate what happened to the sisters, but that inncedent while a bad reflection on the tournament, was definetly an unexpected and unfortunate moment. The true problem with the event, is that this event and the Nasdaq take place back-to-back, which needs to change. Hardly do players perform well at both events. A lot of players back out of this event because it requires travelling from europe all the way to california, all the way to florida again, so players just skip it for the rest and go to the last hardcourt event before claycourt tournaments (nasdaq) and then are close to the locations for the upcoming usa claycourt tournaments (Amelia Island and Family Circle Cup) both of which are on the east coast.

I'm certainly biased when it comes to tournaments in California (since umm I am a Californian ;) ) but face it, it's a great location for tournaments. Southern California is the biggest tennis section in the United States, and it's also one of the few locations where play is pretty much continuous (i.e. no rain delays ;) ).

Kirt12255
Mar 6th, 2006, 05:00 AM
:confused: Why should either of them be "compulsary" is my question. Seems a little screwed up to me...IMO :wavey:

Randriantastic!
Mar 6th, 2006, 06:36 AM
My theory is that IW and Miami should alternate every two years, like Toronto/Montreal. There was something about that in the last Jon Wertheim column, too (though not with these two tournaments).

morningglory
Mar 6th, 2006, 06:38 AM
becuz Miami is right after it.

tenn_ace
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Just when I saw the name of the thread and who posted it, I knew the real reason behind it: to bring up the "accident" AGAIN for the gazillions time. I just thought that the thread starter would be smarter and let other bring it up. I guess, that was too much to ask. Oh well....

Wiggly
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:28 PM
My theory is that IW and Miami should alternate every two years, like Toronto/Montreal. There was something about that in the last Jon Wertheim column, too (though not with these two tournaments).

It's different, Rogers Cup is one tournament but alternate because Tennis Canada decided then we should saw men AND women tennis so they alternate so when women are in Montreal, men are in Toronto.

IW and Miami are 2 tournaments. Myabe they could move IW during the summer when we have 3-4 weeks of tournament in California :confused: (Stanford, LA, San Diego,etc)

smiler
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:38 PM
I'm sorry but could somebody fill me in on the incident? I'm relatively new to tennis. Thanks :)

liuxuan
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:44 PM
I think the main stadium is lovely, but I gotta say, if I were a top seed, it would sure be a long way to travel from europe at this time of year,just to head back over to miami the next week.

jeanpierre
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Myabe they could move IW during the summer when we have 3-4 weeks of tournament in California :confused: (Stanford, LA, San Diego,etc)


imagining players to play tennis in 50 degrees heat :lol: Miami is so better tournoment.

SzavayFi
Mar 6th, 2006, 12:59 PM
I would move it to Texas, they don't have a women Tournment.
Yes that would be incredible :bowdown:

TheBoiledEgg
Mar 6th, 2006, 01:18 PM
they not going to move it
the mens tourn is a BIG success, crowds are growing each year.
most of the best guys were half a world away in dubai (12 hours), they will all turn up to play IW.

the main problem for WTA was down to Scottsdale leaving
maybe next yr Las Vegas 75k can be upgraded to a Tier II (thats would help Indian Wells bigtime)

njnetswill
Mar 6th, 2006, 02:18 PM
China has plans to buy it, but then somehow America saved it. :p :o