PDA

View Full Version : What tournaments do you think should be mandatory?


Aaron.
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:15 PM
heres my list

Indian Wells
Miami
Charleston
Rome
San Diego
Zurich

Pie800
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:17 PM
Indian Wells
Miami
Doha (2008 onwards; Tier I)
Rome
San Diego (maybe)

sfselesfan
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Slams and Miami.

SF

Nicolás89
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:33 PM
Indian Wells
Miami
Rome
Montreal
Tokyo PP
Slams
also, Olympics and Fed Cup
:D

sfselesfan
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Too many mandatory tournaments makes too many injuries. (especially with IW and Miami as back to back...add in Charleston and you'll have a shitty clay court season and Wimbledon). Bad idea. Look at where the men's game has gone with too many mandatory tournaments in the summer.

SF

Doc
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:35 PM
San Diego is no more.

It's hard to pick tournaments that should be "mandatory." They have to be a week or two separated from the Slams. Not too many in one place. First of all these Super-events need sorting out. Would have to be two in Europe one or two in America. One in Asia.

Ballbasher
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Zurich will most likely be away in 2009 too

HenryMag.
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:42 PM
GS
Miami

Dexter
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:45 PM
4 mandatories + 1 GS in USA. :weirdo: Hello, this isn't USTA Tour.

Anyway San Diego is gone for good from the calendar. :wavey:

Tennisstar86
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:49 PM
well making indian wells mandatory would just be dumb.... 2 of the tours biggest stars def wont play it... they'll just take the fine...

I dont think any of them should be mandatory... maybe have a you must play 4 of these 6..... cause what sets the GS apart from these other tournaments is that all the top players play them.....

Especially on the O.P list... I mean you have those 6 tounies... plus the 4 grand slams... plus YEC. heck thats practically all Venus, Serena, and Justine would play..... it'd take away from the other tournies... and youd end up with Kuznetsova walking away with a tier 1 like she did this year witheveryone retiring..

LudwigDvorak
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:51 PM
The slams. End. I don't agree with Miami being mandatory. I much prefer IW to Miami, and if I were a top player I'd pick IW instead of killing myself.

John.
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:51 PM
Grand Slams + Miami

cypher_88
Nov 20th, 2007, 07:54 PM
Miami
Rome
Toronto
Moscow

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Nov 20th, 2007, 08:28 PM
heres my list

Indian Wells
Miami
Charleston
Rome
San Diego
Zurich

Miami is already mandatory, San Diego had its last tournament this year and Zurich is Tier II next year (gone in 2009).

It's good as it is now. Maybe they can make Indian Wells and YEC mandatory as well.

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 20th, 2007, 09:31 PM
Toronto...maybe then they would get better fields :unsure:

AcesHigh
Nov 20th, 2007, 09:34 PM
I like the ATP system. All Tier I's should be mandatory.. they just need a better system of Tier I's.

Matt01
Nov 20th, 2007, 10:09 PM
None.

evan2907
Nov 20th, 2007, 10:18 PM
Like it will be: Miami, IW, Madrid, Beijing

LUXXXAS
Nov 20th, 2007, 10:26 PM
At least one mandatory tournament on clay and on grass! plus more tournaments on these surfaces! :D

Jeff
Nov 20th, 2007, 10:49 PM
The slams should be mandatory and some Tier ones (e.g., Miami) but also others. Things "happen" but I think that 15 tournaments a year should be mandatory, which includes playing at least three tier I tournaments (whichever those may be) and at least three Tier II tournaments (whichever those may be). This would cover players who are temporarily sick/injured/fatigued, and allow them to miss some tournaments and make up others.

But if these things must be mandatory, i also think it should be mandatory that tournament coordinators inform that players have withdrawn from a tournament in a reasonable amount of a time, rather than blaming the players and making it seem as though they pulled out a week before a tournament in order to keep ticket sales.

ce
Nov 20th, 2007, 11:09 PM
all tier 1,GS,FED CUP (:drool:),Olympics

Renalicious
Nov 20th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Slams + IW + Miami

FrchTwst
Nov 21st, 2007, 02:26 AM
Slams
Miami
Madrid (for 2009)

Daniel K
Nov 21st, 2007, 03:22 AM
The slams, Miami, a clay tournament and an indoor tournament.

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2007, 03:28 AM
NONE! (At a stretch the Slams then).

heytennis
Nov 21st, 2007, 04:20 AM
Just the slams. Besides those, let it be a free market.

RJWCapriati
Nov 21st, 2007, 05:47 AM
Slams

Doha

Indian Wells

Miami

Charleston

Rome

Toronto/Montreal

Moscow

cheo23
Nov 21st, 2007, 06:34 AM
Umm ALL the USA Tournaments and the Grand Slams!!!!!!!

juki
Nov 21st, 2007, 06:48 AM
I agree with others that none should be mandatory (and do away with Gold/Silver exempt lists also, not that it would change much).

QUEENLINDSAY
Nov 21st, 2007, 08:18 AM
Grandslams + Indian Wells

Indian Wells has the facility the nice weather to bring up a Slam like tournament.

justine schnyder
Nov 21st, 2007, 08:30 AM
It's good as it is

Taz Warrior
Nov 21st, 2007, 09:15 AM
Only the Grand Slams - you already get penalised by not playing the Tier I's through the lost opportunity of gaining more points :)

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2007, 09:57 AM
Slams

Doha

Indian Wells

Miami

Charleston

Rome

Toronto/Montreal

Moscow

Have to be American - no one else would suggest IW, Miami AND Charleston. :lol:

chuvack
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:13 AM
None. No tournaments should be mandatory.

Andy.
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:16 AM
I dont think any apart from the Slams

debopero
Nov 21st, 2007, 11:42 AM
Miami
Rome
Toronto/Montreal
Bejiing

Lunaris
Nov 21st, 2007, 12:14 PM
None.
That's the word that instantly came to my mind. :worship:

Henpova
Nov 21st, 2007, 12:50 PM
I like the ATP system. All Tier I's should be mandatory.. they just need a better system of Tier I's.

I think this would be smart, but they would need less Tier ones, and a better schedule. To many back to back as it is.

lympyisthebest
Nov 21st, 2007, 12:55 PM
None, and players shouldn't be restricted to play tier IV tournaments either.

jonny84
Nov 21st, 2007, 12:55 PM
I think the 2009 system is the best.

Grand Slams
Indian Wells
Miami
Madrid
Beijing

8 tournaments with all the top players, seems the right balance and they are spaced out through the year.

thrust
Nov 21st, 2007, 02:54 PM
None, and players shouldn't be restricted to play tier IV tournaments either.
Top 20 players should not be given any points or money for playing a tier IV tournament.

cypher_88
Nov 21st, 2007, 03:05 PM
I think this would be smart, but they would need less Tier ones, and a better schedule. To many back to back as it is.

the ATP system is bad. even worse than the WTA i might add (MC,Rome,Hamburg all in 4 weeks?? or Montreal-Cincinatti for that matter ;) ).

WTA does not have too many Tier 1, same number of important tournaments like the ATP;) . i think some should be made compulsory besides Miami, not sure which ones anymore though. maybe Rome/Madrid, Montreal, Beijing and Moscow.

cheo23
Nov 21st, 2007, 04:47 PM
It should Be:
Australian Open
Amelia Island
Charleston
Indian Wells
French Open
Memphis
Cincinatti
Wimbledon
Stanford
LA
Acura
Pilot Pen
US Open

polishprodigy
Nov 21st, 2007, 05:09 PM
Memphis???? lol

Toronto/Montreal. We have a Tier I and always get Tier II-III draws because of all the withdrawals...

Andy T
Nov 21st, 2007, 05:16 PM
Only the majors. Miami should just be a tier one like the others or, better still, scrapped.

Lunaris
Nov 21st, 2007, 05:24 PM
Toronto/Montreal fields were not so great often due to players playing Californian swing which included another Tier I in San Diego. Now that Acura is no more I expect more good players to show up in Canada.

thenj
Nov 21st, 2007, 06:08 PM
just the grand slams

Paule22
Nov 21st, 2007, 06:12 PM
Berlin, Düsseldorf, Essen, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Munich

Pheobo
Nov 21st, 2007, 06:14 PM
None of them should be mandatory. It should be up to the player whether they feel like making money or not.

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2007, 08:23 PM
Berlin, Düsseldorf, Essen, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Munich

:lol:

In that case: Gold Coast, Sydney/Hobart (depending on ranking :p ), AO... that's all then. ;)

Woodsworth
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:08 PM
None of them should be mandatory. It should be up to the player whether they feel like making money or not.

If you want that, stick to the ITF Tour.

Australian Open
Indian Wells
Miami
Rome
French Open
Toronto
Cincinnati
US Open
Beijing

Matt01
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:08 PM
In 2015, the mandatory tournaments will probably be Doha, Bejing, Bali, Bangkok and Bangalore :rolleyes:

Wiggly
Nov 21st, 2007, 10:48 PM
CANADA!

We always have a terrific Entry List and finally we have like 2 top Ten.

Men is a Masters are the tournament this year was amazing.

missvarsha
Nov 22nd, 2007, 12:58 AM
In 2015, the mandatory tournaments will probably be Doha, Bejing, Bali, Bangkok and Bangalore

Boo-hoo Europe is no longer the center of the universe. Deal with it.

Pheobo
Nov 22nd, 2007, 02:16 AM
If you want that, stick to the ITF Tour.

Australian Open
Indian Wells
Miami
Rome
French Open
Toronto
Cincinnati
US Open
Beijing

yeah, because that's where the big bucks are at :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Nov 22nd, 2007, 04:33 AM
If you want that, stick to the ITF Tour.

Australian Open
Indian Wells
Miami
Rome
French Open
Toronto
Cincinnati
US Open
Beijing

:scratch: Why should they have to? That's a stupid comment. The tour had been doing just fine with no mandatories up until the last few years with all thei njuries. I don't see how mandatories are really gonna help.

BuTtErFrEnA
Nov 22nd, 2007, 10:54 AM
Boo-hoo Europe is no longer the center of the universe. Deal with it.

but there's no sense in the WTA being centered in places where women's rights are down right horrid :shrug:

Matt01
Nov 22nd, 2007, 12:04 PM
Boo-hoo Europe is no longer the center of the universe.


Well, Asia isn't, either.

Shepster
Nov 22nd, 2007, 02:56 PM
Every Tier I and above should be mandatory, the men have the right idea on this one. It gives the players a better way to schedule their season, they can still play as much or as little as they want outside of that and it guarantees the highest standard of competition throughout the year. It also makes winning the tournaments with the most points on offer much more meaningful, it's the only way to go.

DutchieGirl
Nov 22nd, 2007, 07:55 PM
Every Tier I and above should be mandatory, the men have the right idea on this one. It gives the players a better way to schedule their season, they can still play as much or as little as they want outside of that and it guarantees the highest standard of competition throughout the year. It also makes winning the tournaments with the most points on offer much more meaningful, it's the only way to go.

But it doesn't give the players a better way to schedule their season when you have 4 weeks of mandatories in a row (IW/Miami) or if you have 3x tier 1's in a row. Not all players want to play 3 big weeks in a row. Players should have the right to choose where and when they want to play.

Shepster
Nov 22nd, 2007, 08:24 PM
But it doesn't give the players a better way to schedule their season when you have 4 weeks of mandatories in a row (IW/Miami) or if you have 3x tier 1's in a row. Not all players want to play 3 big weeks in a row. Players should have the right to choose where and when they want to play.
a/ the schedule overall would probably be tinkered with if they went to this system, but yes there would be some stretches with back to back tournies, I don't see a problem with that though as next year there's only 1 time where there are two "normal" Tier Is back to back (Berlin and Rome) which is much worse on the body than the IW/Miami back to back, so there's never 3 tier 1s in a row and the one time it would be more than 3 weeks in a row :

b/ The IW/Miami swing is, if you get to the final of both and you're seeded, 12 matches in a month. That is actually better scheduling than cramming in two warm up tournaments pre-Wimbledon on the back of the French Open, for example and on the other side of things two tournaments in a month should never be "too much" for a professional to be able to do, *especially* when they're spread out over 2 weeks so they're not playing every day.

c/ You still can choose where and when to play, just there would be certain minimum requirements which would be for the benefit of the tour and level of competition which would benefit the players themselves. Players like Schnyder or Hantuchova or Jankovic who like playing more will still have ample opportunity to do that. Players like Justine and Maria who don't like playing more would still have the option not to play inbetween if they chose not to or add one or two if that particular tournament appeals to them. What it does do though is prevent players from ducking harder competition in a Tier I to go and play a Tier II or lower the next week which I am all for. Nobody is going to be overworked by having to play 14 events, nobody is going to be underworked either as you can play as much outside of that as you like.

Wiggly
Nov 22nd, 2007, 10:11 PM
Maybe both ATP and WTA wants mayne more tournaments in Asia and cancel some in America and Europe.

But nobody is going to watch every tournament at 3AM.
They should think about that.

Lunaris
Nov 23rd, 2007, 02:09 AM
a/ the schedule overall would probably be tinkered with if they went to this system, but yes there would be some stretches with back to back tournies, I don't see a problem with that though as next year there's only 1 time where there are two "normal" Tier Is back to back (Berlin and Rome) which is much worse on the body than the IW/Miami back to back, so there's never 3 tier 1s in a row and the one time it would be more than 3 weeks in a row :

b/ The IW/Miami swing is, if you get to the final of both and you're seeded, 12 matches in a month. That is actually better scheduling than cramming in two warm up tournaments pre-Wimbledon on the back of the French Open, for example and on the other side of things two tournaments in a month should never be "too much" for a professional to be able to do, *especially* when they're spread out over 2 weeks so they're not playing every day.

c/ You still can choose where and when to play, just there would be certain minimum requirements which would be for the benefit of the tour and level of competition which would benefit the players themselves. Players like Schnyder or Hantuchova or Jankovic who like playing more will still have ample opportunity to do that. Players like Justine and Maria who don't like playing more would still have the option not to play inbetween if they chose not to or add one or two if that particular tournament appeals to them. What it does do though is prevent players from ducking harder competition in a Tier I to go and play a Tier II or lower the next week which I am all for. Nobody is going to be overworked by having to play 14 events, nobody is going to be underworked either as you can play as much outside of that as you like.
I don't have any problems with scheduling either but the error I see in this is that there would be left only other 3 tournaments which would count towards players' ranking as 17 count as of now. If I am not mistaken it's going to be only 16 from 2009. Players who like to play instead of practicing would get no benefits from this system, rather the contrary. If there must be mandatory tournaments at all I think it's fine with 8 of them, like it's gonna be from 2009. That makes it acceptable for the players who like to play less as well as for those who like to play more.
You are too much focused on "ducking harder competition". Who does it anyway? Do you think the WS are afraid of competition there? I would say it would ensure the top players playing, not prevent other players to avoid stronger fields. The problem is the top players are not playing enough, not lesser players making up for points they can't gain at Tier 1's at lesser tournaments.

FrchTwst
Nov 23rd, 2007, 03:51 AM
There are about 8 or 9 Tier 1's in 2008. This needs to be reduced to 6. Make the players play in any four that the player choses.

DutchieGirl
Nov 23rd, 2007, 11:32 AM
a/ the schedule overall would probably be tinkered with if they went to this system, but yes there would be some stretches with back to back tournies, I don't see a problem with that though as next year there's only 1 time where there are two "normal" Tier Is back to back (Berlin and Rome) which is much worse on the body than the IW/Miami back to back, so there's never 3 tier 1s in a row and the one time it would be more than 3 weeks in a row :

b/ The IW/Miami swing is, if you get to the final of both and you're seeded, 12 matches in a month. That is actually better scheduling than cramming in two warm up tournaments pre-Wimbledon on the back of the French Open, for example and on the other side of things two tournaments in a month should never be "too much" for a professional to be able to do, *especially* when they're spread out over 2 weeks so they're not playing every day.

c/ You still can choose where and when to play, just there would be certain minimum requirements which would be for the benefit of the tour and level of competition which would benefit the players themselves. Players like Schnyder or Hantuchova or Jankovic who like playing more will still have ample opportunity to do that. Players like Justine and Maria who don't like playing more would still have the option not to play inbetween if they chose not to or add one or two if that particular tournament appeals to them. What it does do though is prevent players from ducking harder competition in a Tier I to go and play a Tier II or lower the next week which I am all for. Nobody is going to be overworked by having to play 14 events, nobody is going to be underworked either as you can play as much outside of that as you like.

a. right - coz they tinkered with it so much already to supposedly make it better, and that's working a treat right now huh?

b. And if you're not seeded? Plus cramming in 2 warm ups before Wimby if you are a top seed you can get byes at tourneys too - so you then only have to win 4 matches to win the tourney in that case. And I'm not talking about the fact that the players at IW/Miami don't have to play every day - they still have to mentally be ready for 2 big tourneys in a row, and heck, alot of players probably just won't play anyway.

c. Do you not understand the word mandatory? No you don't choose where you want to play. Not 100% of the time you don't, because it means you HAVE TO play at least these 8 tourneys (in 2009) - that's not choice. That's telling the players where and when they have to play. Even if it is "only" 8 tournaments, for me it's 8 too many. Yes, the players have the "option" of playing in between these tourneys, but they should also have the option to play these tourneys or not. If players don't want to play at a tourney, I don't see why they should be forced to play there. The Grand SLams are meant to be the 4 "jewels" of the year - players should want to play them. The other tourneys are all lesser tourneys, and so if a player doesn't want to play there I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't convince me that they should be forced to. If they wanna play a tier 2 the next week because they prefer that tourney, then they should be allowed to. I never said anyone was going to be overworked. I just said that the schedule sucks as it is, and I doubt if they keep making more tourneys mandatory they are gonna change the schedule that much to make it any better, and I still don't see how it is fair to the players to bring in mandatory tourneys. As I said, the tour had worked fine up until now - but coz in the last couple of years the injuries have increased the WTA thinks that bringing in mandatories is gonna help that or what? I really doubt it, and I still think if a player doesn;t want to play one of the mandatories then they probably won't anyway - so I just think it's a stupid idea, and its unfair. You want a player to play at your tourney - go out there and make them want to!

DutchieGirl
Nov 23rd, 2007, 11:34 AM
There are about 8 or 9 Tier 1's in 2008. This needs to be reduced to 6. Make the players play in any four that the player choses.

Hmm - that's a better suggestion at least.

Shepster
Nov 23rd, 2007, 12:14 PM
a. right - coz they tinkered with it so much already to supposedly make it better, and that's working a treat right now huh?
And that means what precisely? I agree the way they've tinkered with it to accomodate the new ideas suck, doesn't mean if they went for a different set up that would automatically suck too.

b. And if you're not seeded? Plus cramming in 2 warm ups before Wimby if you are a top seed you can get byes at tourneys too - so you then only have to win 4 matches to win the tourney in that case.
And that means 8 matches, + the 7 at Wimbledon which is actually more in 4 weeks of play than you do at the IW/Miami swing.
And I'm not talking about the fact that the players at IW/Miami don't have to play every day - they still have to mentally be ready for 2 big tourneys in a row, and heck, alot of players probably just won't play anyway.
Let's let the men answer that - 15 of the top 16 played Indian Wells this year, the exact same played Miami. The only people who "won't play anyway" are the Williamses.

c. Do you not understand the word mandatory? No you don't choose where you want to play. Not 100% of the time you don't, because it means you HAVE TO play at least these 8 tourneys (in 2009) - that's not choice. That's telling the players where and when they have to play.
So what? They already get "told" to play the slams and Miami. Is it "unfair" that they "have" to play Miami? Of course not, there is no injustice there, it's just them realising that is the situation they have to do if they want to be on the tour so you do it.
Even if it is "only" 8 tournaments, for me it's 8 too many. Yes, the players have the "option" of playing in between these tourneys, but they should also have the option to play these tourneys or not.
Why? Is it a god-given right to play on the tour? No. Is the tour not allowed to sustain the incredible amounts of money these players earn by marketing the game better and getting all the good players in one place at the same time on a regular basis? How is that "unfair"? It's good for the game, it's good for the player's game, it's good for their bank balance and in giving them a spine to schedule the season around it *can* (because this is where the individual choice factor comes in) provide a situation where players aren't getting injured by playing too much or too little.

If players don't want to play at a tourney, I don't see why they should be forced to play there.
If they have a legit reason not to go they won't be.
The Grand SLams are meant to be the 4 "jewels" of the year - players should want to play them.
Tennis players "should want to play" at the highest level all the time. This is what adds to the prestige of the slams not only the tradition, prize money, etc, but that all the top players are there. The men have it so right, you get that frequently and in doing so create tournaments that players do "want" to play because the level of competition is second to none and failure has real ramifications vis-a-vis ranking.
The other tourneys are all lesser tourneys, and so if a player doesn't want to play there I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't convince me that they should be forced to. If they wanna play a tier 2 the next week because they prefer that tourney, then they should be allowed to.
I'm sorry, but the current situation where Venus Williams can play a Tier III in Bangkok rather than a Tier I in Russia is just completely unpalatable.
I never said anyone was going to be overworked. I just said that the schedule sucks as it is, and I doubt if they keep making more tourneys mandatory they are gonna change the schedule that much to make it any better, and I still don't see how it is fair to the players to bring in mandatory tourneys.
Yet how is it unfair? Oh no, I'm being FORCED to do my job and get paid thousands of dollars to play tennis? They already do it anyway, the men have shown how successful both in terms of quality, the financial side and prestige this way is. At the moment, with the way the situation is, I don't BLAME players for wanting to play Stuttgart Tier II and not go to Moscow for a Tier I the next week. I don't blame them for not wanting to play in Tokyo on the back of the Aussie Open. Like I said though, if you went to this way the schedule would probably be tinkered with. It already is, Tokyo's been moved to the back end of the calendar so that scenario which could be "unfair" on the current calendar wouldn't be any more. However, with making them mandatory and everything that goes with it, players will want to play them, they will be more motivated to do well in them, they will schedule around that to get the best out of them (which would prevent people only playing 3, 4, 5 Tier Is a year so that they can tailor the season solely around the grand slams), there is no injustice in this whatsoever and if they physically can't do it then they won't be made to.
As I said, the tour had worked fine up until now - but coz in the last couple of years the injuries have increased the WTA thinks that bringing in mandatories is gonna help that or what? I really doubt it, and I still think if a player doesn;t want to play one of the mandatories then they probably won't anyway - so I just think it's a stupid idea, and its unfair. You want a player to play at your tourney - go out there and make them want to!
I think the biggest problem of all at the moment is precisely your final point - you have some Tier II tournaments with better fields than Tier Is - how is it even possible that Justine Henin can get 275 points and $90,000 for winning a tournament with 8 of the top 10 players in the world present yet Martina Hingis can win double the money and 430 points in Tokyo with less than half of the top players present? That's completely screwed up and an untenable situation that is unjustifiable in a sporting context. Yes the players choose not to go to Tokyo, but that's the point, how can it have those rewards if the players aren't going to be there, how can it be justified? Much more fair to say there are certain tournaments where everyone who can will be there are *those* are the ones that you will get the biggest payoff for, both monetarily and rankings wise, because those are against the toughest opposition.

DutchieGirl
Nov 23rd, 2007, 09:43 PM
Can't be assed going round in circles with you - obviously we disagree. I'm never going to like the mandatory tournament idea - I hate the idea of people being FORCED to do something. I believe in being able to make your own choice - obviously you don't care so much about that.

Keaka
Nov 23rd, 2007, 09:44 PM
Portoroz

KoOlMaNsEaN
Nov 23rd, 2007, 10:09 PM
Dubai(if its a tier 1)
Miami
Rome
TorontoBeijing

Tennace
Nov 24th, 2007, 02:03 AM
If they make more mandatory tournaments they should be as far away from slams as possible. Like Miami isnt exactly anywhere near the AO or FO (about 2 months after AO and 2 before FO) so it works well. After that the slams are pretty close in general so the bes timing would be either last week of July/first of August (whatever big tournament is there) or the first or second week of October (Moscow?) Tournaments far from slams so players wont have to take off for resting up for a slam or recovering from one.

fatty sausage
Nov 24th, 2007, 07:13 PM
EASY! Any tournament I plan on attending, all the superstars should show up. Whether it be a Tier 1, Tier II or even a 50k Challenger. Then I would be happy ha ha

terjw
Nov 24th, 2007, 10:05 PM
None. And they should also scrap all those other ridiculous rules forcing players on the Gold and Silver exempt lists to play like Player Committment contracts and hard designated tournaments and play down rules etc.

A lot of posters reckon the slams should be mandatory. But why? Do you honestly think that making them mandatory you get more top players there. Of course not. Unless they really cannot play because they are so injured or some really big problem like Justine had not playing the AO - they give their right arm to play in a slam simply because it is a slam. Not because someone says it's mandatory.

Same with Miami. I think we had less top players there the year it was made mandatory than we had the year before because it is a prestigious tournament.

All these rules do is make it a virtual certainty that we get a load of late withdrawals. Without these rules - there really is no excuse for players to commit to a tournament and then withdraw (apart from completely unexpected events which should be the exception rather than the norm).

OsloErik
Nov 25th, 2007, 01:29 AM
Personally, I'd make the slams mandatory and require players to compete in 6 Tier I's, but let them choose which Tier I's they play. Solves just about everyones problems. Oh yeah, and quit this unequal size of draw for Tier I's. It's silly to have Miami and Tokyo both be Tier I's when they don't resemble each other at all, draw or money. Make them all 64 player, or 56 (give the top 8 a bye) and make everyone play an assortment of them.