PDA

View Full Version : How's this to make players play more--


Reuchlin
Mar 7th, 2006, 04:07 PM
How's this to make players play more-- You need to have a certain amount of events before EVERY slam. Don't have them, you can't participate in the Slam.
That'll get those players who seem always "injured" mid-slam season and then show up fit and ready to play for slams.

hablo
Mar 7th, 2006, 04:09 PM
It's a good thing you don't run the tour :)

TomTennis
Mar 7th, 2006, 04:19 PM
another newbie :tape:

That is a terrible idea. Because forcing players who are injured to play will just push them out of the game for longer.

Hablovah i agree!!

Barlos
Mar 7th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Yes, terrible idea to force players to play considering how big the injury problem has been recently. Injuries are often the reason why tournaments are short of top players anyway! Otherwise Clijsters and Pierce would be playing IW, right?

FrenchY52
Mar 7th, 2006, 05:01 PM
:tape: :lol:

Direwolf
Mar 7th, 2006, 05:30 PM
another newbie :tape:

That is a terrible idea. Because forcing players who are injured to play will just push them out of the game for longer.

Hablovah i agree!!

stupid post!!

how about if you have been out for like 4 months, and the first tournament u enter is a grandslam, I think that the shame would be on the players and to the tennis itself.
A tournament or two doesnt prolong their injury.

I agree with your idea, I think that its nice becuz by playing with other players 1-3 weeks before a slam would give you a better view on your game against other players who would be in the same slam.
I think WTA should make more tournaments mandatory, a tournament in all levels, not only on a tierI.
I think 1 tournament before AO
3-4 tournaments before FO
1 tournament before WI
3-4 tournaments before USO
a total of 12 tournaments before qualifying for the YEC.

faboozadoo15
Mar 7th, 2006, 06:36 PM
this is just retarded. we're lucky if players come back from injuries as soon as they do (and sometimes at slams which makes things exciting) and you want to force them to play a certian amount of events before they feel they're ready to come back?!?!?!

TomTennis
Mar 7th, 2006, 06:42 PM
stupid post!!

how about if you have been out for like 4 months, and the first tournament u enter is a grandslam, I think that the shame would be on the players and to the tennis itself.
A tournament or two doesnt prolong their injury.

I agree with your idea, I think that its nice becuz by playing with other players 1-3 weeks before a slam would give you a better view on your game against other players who would be in the same slam.
I think WTA should make more tournaments mandatory, a tournament in all levels, not only on a tierI.
I think 1 tournament before AO
3-4 tournaments before FO
1 tournament before WI
3-4 tournaments before USO
a total of 12 tournaments before qualifying for the YEC.

what, how was my post stupid. Its ridiculous to think of FORCING players to play smaller tournaments before slams if they are injured.

Im not going to use Venus or Serena as an example, because many ppl would probably want them to play so they get even more injured, Ill use Kimmie.

Ok, so take Clijsters. What if she is injured until Rome, and then plays Rome. BUT by this stupid rule she cant play the FO because she hasnt played 3-4 tournaments, only one!!! Its absolutely propsoterus to even think of this rule!

You guys are just thinking, "Oh so wat. Im a fan and we need to see tennis" without giving any respect to the players bodies and what they have to endure. So what if they are injured, just make them play - is an absolute stupid thing! i cant believe you would think it!

TomTennis
Mar 7th, 2006, 06:45 PM
The solution to players not playing enough is not to FORCE them to play, because they will simply just skip the slams as their bodies are too important, and we would probably have something like a Harleroad vs. Lee-Waters match as a grand slam final (sorry to those Harleroad and Lee-Waters fans!).

Reuchlin
Mar 7th, 2006, 09:09 PM
Somebody gave a red dot for this post! Why? It's just an idea-- and clearly there would be some mechanisms in place in make sure that injured players can play the slams. I am more or less talking about those players that skip events merely to "rest." Ya'll know who these players are.

abayen
Mar 7th, 2006, 09:51 PM
I think the logic is if the player enters a slam, then that player can definitely enter 2 tournaments before the slam... If the player can't play 2 tournaments before the slam, then that player is not fit enough to play in the slam in any case...

In a way, I think this idea is great for the following reasons:
1. This will prevent more injuries because players who are not ready and are genuinely injured will not be able to play slams (which they sometimes do, at the expense of their bodies)
2. Players who fake injuries will be forced to play more, which is great for fans and tournaments and tennis in general.

So everyone wins. Great idea!


what, how was my post stupid. Its ridiculous to think of FORCING players to play smaller tournaments before slams if they are injured.

Im not going to use Venus or Serena as an example, because many ppl would probably want them to play so they get even more injured, Ill use Kimmie.

Ok, so take Clijsters. What if she is injured until Rome, and then plays Rome. BUT by this stupid rule she cant play the FO because she hasnt played 3-4 tournaments, only one!!! Its absolutely propsoterus to even think of this rule!

You guys are just thinking, "Oh so wat. Im a fan and we need to see tennis" without giving any respect to the players bodies and what they have to endure. So what if they are injured, just make them play - is an absolute stupid thing! i cant believe you would think it!

DragonFlame
Mar 7th, 2006, 11:30 PM
yeah, when justine, kim, maria and serena and venus are all injured at the same time but can't come back in a slam cause they haven't played enough tournaments :tape: that would be so much bad publicity and lost money for the tour... when we hear this year: nicole vaidisova topfavourite for the rgtitle!!! please just shoot me :o it's good you don't run the tour like others said :p

Ferosh
Mar 7th, 2006, 11:50 PM
They should have never made Miami a mandatory tournament for the players. The blame for the injuries lies solely on the WTA and tournament organizers, not the players. Why have two huge Tier 1 events (Indian Wells, Miami) back to back?

Zauber
Mar 7th, 2006, 11:52 PM
one of the few sporting events where everone shows up.
Olympics, world cup Grand slams.
very rare in sports
You want to ban players from participating????????????
You "can not be serious"

Ferosh
Mar 7th, 2006, 11:54 PM
How many tournaments are already requiered of Gold Exempt players?

Reuchlin
Mar 8th, 2006, 12:32 AM
How many tournaments are already requiered of Gold Exempt players?

But the point is that a lot of players don't mind being fined...they DO mind not being allowed to play slams.

RJWCapriati
Mar 8th, 2006, 01:14 AM
It's a good thing you don't run the tour :)


:lol:

meyerpl
Mar 8th, 2006, 03:22 AM
I'll just say the idea behind this thread seems ironic coming from a fan of Justine Henin-hardenne.

Volcana
Mar 8th, 2006, 03:51 AM
How's this to make players play more-- You need to have a certain amount of events before EVERY slam. Don't have them, you can't participate in the Slam.
That'll get those players who seem always "injured" mid-slam season and then show up fit and ready to play for slams.You seem to not understand the actual structure of professional tennis. The International Tennis Federation (the 'ITF') runs the slams. The ITF is not only a completely separate entitiy from the WTA, the WTA broke away from the ITF with some acrimony.

The ITF has exactly NO interest in requiring players to play WTA events.

Look at the practical trade-offs.

The WTA gives the slams, which it does not control, double points.
The ITF usually goes with the WTA rankings in seeding. But all the slams SAY they can seed anyway they want. In other words, the ITF gives nothing. The ITF is the dominant party in the arrangement. You idea lessens that dominance. Why should they do that?

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Mar 8th, 2006, 03:55 AM
its a bad idea because:
A) It's Stupid :rolleyes:
B) If top players dont play enough prior to Slams, and then cannot participate at the Slams then not as many people will go and WTA will lose TV and Ticket sales.
C) The fans will lose out on seeing there faves.
D) We will miss out on alot of potential great matches.
E) It aint fair for people who are injured and cant play
F) It's Stupid :lol:

Reuchlin
Mar 8th, 2006, 04:04 AM
You seem to not understand the actual structure of professional tennis. The International Tennis Federation (the 'ITF') runs the slams. The ITF is not only a completely separate entitiy from the WTA, the WTA broke away from the ITF with some acrimony.

The ITF has exactly NO interest in requiring players to play WTA events.

Look at the practical trade-offs.

The WTA gives the slams, which it does not control, double points.
The ITF usually goes with the WTA rankings in seeding. But all the slams SAY they can seed anyway they want. In other words, the ITF gives nothing. The ITF is the dominant party in the arrangement. You idea lessens that dominance. Why should they do that?
Well I guess some...(omg(osh)) Co-operation would be in order!!!!! :scared:

Havok
Mar 8th, 2006, 04:13 AM
They should have never made Miami a mandatory tournament for the players. The blame for the injuries lies solely on the WTA and tournament organizers, not the players. Why have two huge Tier 1 events (Indian Wells, Miami) back to back?

If the men can do it, so can the women. The WTa desperately need to copy the ranking system of the ATP imo. Slams and Tier I events are manditory and then your best 5 other tournaments count towards your ranking. It'll force players to not play so much lower tiers (players will still play them for match practice as well as ranking points) but it will force players to peak at the important events and force them to play these big events as well since if you don't, you wont add any points to your ranking.

Volcana
Mar 8th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Well I guess some...(omg(osh)) Co-operation would be in order!!!!! :scared:Co-operation only works when BOTH parties gain. What does the ITF get out of this?