PDA

View Full Version : The new WTA rules next year


jimbo mack
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:27 PM
In regards to next year's rules, if a player withdraws from indian wells citing 'fatigue' and does not do promotional stuff, does that really mean she will be fined and suspended from 2 other tournaments?

If a player does not want to play in beijing citing 'asthma' as their reason (like justine) will they also be fined?

What if a player cites injury, whether it's genuine or not, do they still get fined? do they have to present proof of their injury to the wta?

i think its wrong to force a player to play more mandatory tournaments. arent the grandslams, YEC and miami enough? They are taking away choices completely from players and i can only see this contribute to further injury, burn out and disinterest

they should at least give the players a week off between indian wells and miami, it's too much

mal
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:30 PM
What if a player cites injury, whether it's genuine or not, do they still get fined? do they have to present proof of their injury to the wta?



Yeah they do, and I will break the legs of anyone who wants to pull out with a genuine reason (for a small fee).

Tennisstar86
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:38 PM
as of right now yes.......yes and yes..however.... after Serena just said hell no i wont be in indian wells even to promote larry will be changing the rules....

jimbo mack
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:55 PM
these rules have to be stopped, i hope all the players protest

In The Zone
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:57 PM
as of right now yes.......yes and yes..however.... after Serena just said hell no i wont be in indian wells even to promote larry will be changing the rules....

And Serena's agent confirmed the opposite. That she would do the necessary actions to compete in Miami.

TheFifthAvocado
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:04 PM
I think its good that they are making more mandatory events because it can finally start a good rivalry on the womens side. Larry Scott could be a little more lenient on the players that have/want to skip an event though.

jimbo mack
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:04 PM
so if a player broke her leg in indian wells she would be fined for pulling out of miami?

yeh right

jimbo mack
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:05 PM
I think its good that they are making more mandatory events because it can finally start a good rivalry on the womens side. Larry Scott could be a little more lenient on the players that have/want to skip an event though.


a lot, lot more lenient

jimbo mack
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:10 PM
did davenport get fined for pulling out of stanford and los angeles? :confused:

i get so confused about who gets fined and why? and how some players dont get fined

ASP0315
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:39 PM
did davenport get fined for pulling out of stanford and los angeles? :confused:

i get so confused about who gets fined and why? and how some players dont get fined

oh come on you know how the rules work in Tennis right.?
top players or superstar players will not get to pay the fines or face suspensions.
These rules only apply for non top ranked players. ;)

how many times sharapova get away with illegal coaching at USO 2006.
hoiw many times did djoker got away with faking injuries. he didn't even get fined even though he publicly confessed breaking rules.

anyway i'm not bothered much about it.

Dawson.
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:10 PM
the new rules are going to be the downfall of womens tennis in 2009. players will either a) pull out of a tournament citing fatigue, meaning they will not be able to play other tournaments. b) get injured for over playing or c) tank their matches.

either way, we are not going to see the top players facing each other week in week out as is the plan

serenus_2k8
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:10 PM
You should be allowed to miss a mandatory event if you wish. 5 + 4 slams is restricting the top players too much. Half the fun is seeing where they plan on playing IMO.

stevos
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:41 PM
You should be allowed to miss a mandatory event if you wish. 5 + 4 slams is restricting the top players too much. Half the fun is seeing where they plan on playing IMO.

You think NINE tournaments being mandatory is too much?!
This is insanity. Tennis players have a job, and that is to play on the tour, if they can't handle needed to take 15 weeks of their year to be at a specific tournament, in order to promote the tour, promote rivalries, aid advertising/marketing, then they should not be on the tour.

They need to wake up and stop being such little bitches. The ATP has far more mandatory events, and all the men show up for them most of the time. Last year's Rogers Cup had all of the Top 20, while the Women's event....not so much. Once these rules are in place, yes of course if you are truly injured you can possibly get out of a tournament, but it won't be so lackadaisical anymore, which is what is needed.

DutchieGirl
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:09 AM
You think NINE tournaments being mandatory is too much?!
This is insanity. Tennis players have a job, and that is to play on the tour, if they can't handle needed to take 15 weeks of their year to be at a specific tournament, in order to promote the tour, promote rivalries, aid advertising/marketing, then they should not be on the tour.

They need to wake up and stop being such little bitches. The ATP has far more mandatory events, and all the men show up for them most of the time. Last year's Rogers Cup had all of the Top 20, while the Women's event....not so much. Once these rules are in place, yes of course if you are truly injured you can possibly get out of a tournament, but it won't be so lackadaisical anymore, which is what is needed.
I think there should be no more than 4 mandatories (all the GSs) and that's all. That doesn't mean I think the players don't have to play - they should. But why do they have to be FORCED to play somewhere if they don't want to? :shrug:

TheFifthAvocado
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:51 AM
I think there should be no more than 4 mandatories (all the GSs) and that's all. That doesn't mean I think the players don't have to play - they should. But why do they have to be FORCED to play somewhere if they don't want to? :shrug:

This is part of the reason that people don't take the womens tour so seriously. For example, at last years USO the commentators were always talking about how a lot of the top women took the whole summer off (from Wimby - USO). They need the mandatory events so top players will be at the same tourney more often.

Uranium
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:53 AM
This is part of the reason that people don't take the womens tour so seriously. For example, at last years USO the commentators were always talking about how a lot of the top women took the whole summer off (from Wimby - USO). They need the mandatory events so top players will be at the same tourney more often.

I don't like that because them not being in the same events makes the Grand Slams more exciting for the big match-ups that could happen.

skanky~skanketta
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:12 AM
Personally I think that forcing Venus and Serena to play at IW is ridiculous. And making them promote the event is no difference. They were treated appalingly there and it's much too personal. Miami is they home turf where the crowds generally love them. If they're suspended from Miami simply because of skipping IW, it will be so shitty.

darrinbaker00
Jul 18th, 2008, 05:35 AM
I think there should be no more than 4 mandatories (all the GSs) and that's all. That doesn't mean I think the players don't have to play - they should. But why do they have to be FORCED to play somewhere if they don't want to? :shrug:
1. The players are independent contractors, not salaried employees; they aren't forced to play at all. All the Tour is saying is that if you choose to play, these are the rules.

2. The men have 13 mandatory tournaments. Next year, the women will have what, seven? They should be able to handle it just fine.

spec7er
Jul 18th, 2008, 06:28 AM
I think the Masters Series on the ATP is a good model to use. Pull-outs are still present, but at least there is more assurance for fans and media that top players will be there. The total mandatory tournaments aren't that many that players can't handle it.

Richie77
Jul 18th, 2008, 06:50 AM
1. The players are independent contractors, not salaried employees; they aren't forced to play at all. All the Tour is saying is that if you choose to play, these are the rules.

2. The men have 13 mandatory tournaments. Next year, the women will have what, seven? They should be able to handle it just fine.

I think the number is eight. Regardless, it's a much lower number than the men, and it's nothing that any of the top women can't handle.

I like the ATP's system in theory, but I'm not a big fan of the automatic zeroes on either tour. It makes it more complicated for the average fan to keep track of the rankings (the Best of 17 is hard enough to follow), and it punishes players who are injured or have other compelling reasons to not play somewhere, such as Venus and Serena at IW.

What the tours should be doing is giving more incentive for their players to participate in the Tier Is and Slams. For example: Make the ranking system an average system again with a minimum divisor of 13 (4 Slams + 9 Tier Is), and make their points worth far more than any other tournament. The players will want to get into those events to get the most points and the highest ranking possible, but if they don't participate in one or two Tier Is, then they can make up the points at another smaller event without overdoing it.

Then you'll see the top players clamoring to get into all the big tournaments, and the second-tier players can play in the smaller Tier II/III/IV events in order to gain points and move their rankings up. The winner of a smaller event can also earn a "feed-up" spot in a Tier I to get a chance in the bigger event.

Thoughts?

DutchieGirl
Jul 18th, 2008, 08:37 AM
1. The players are independent contractors, not salaried employees; they aren't forced to play at all. All the Tour is saying is that if you choose to play, these are the rules.

2. The men have 13 mandatory tournaments. Next year, the women will have what, seven? They should be able to handle it just fine.
I'm sorry but that's bullshit - it's just another way of saying "you wanna play tennis? You have to play these tourneys." Sorry - I don't like it, and I never will, no matter how you word it, and I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you 10 million times about it.

I don't care what the men have - I don't follow mens tennis much at all, and they are two different tours, so really, what the men have has nothing to do with the WTA tour really. I never said the women couldn't HANDLE it - why does everyone think it's about handling things? I like people to be able to CHOOSE where they will play. Get it?

DutchieGirl
Jul 18th, 2008, 08:39 AM
This is part of the reason that people don't take the womens tour so seriously. For example, at last years USO the commentators were always talking about how a lot of the top women took the whole summer off (from Wimby - USO). They need the mandatory events so top players will be at the same tourney more often.
Why? Because women don't have mandatories people don't take the tour seriously? :lol: Come on. You think the average fan will even know what tourneys are mandatory and not?
They don't NEED mandatory events. They could at least give some choice. ie "you must play 3 out of 5 of these tourneys" - but I still don't like that idea either. You really think if a player doesn't want to play the tourney making it mandatory is gonna help? They will either a. not turn up, b. cite some minor injury c. tank. Great way to have top match ups.

DutchieGirl
Jul 18th, 2008, 08:42 AM
I think the number is eight. Regardless, it's a much lower number than the men, and it's nothing that any of the top women can't handle.

I like the ATP's system in theory, but I'm not a big fan of the automatic zeroes on either tour. It makes it more complicated for the average fan to keep track of the rankings (the Best of 17 is hard enough to follow), and it punishes players who are injured or have other compelling reasons to not play somewhere, such as Venus and Serena at IW.

What the tours should be doing is giving more incentive for their players to participate in the Tier Is and Slams. For example: Make the ranking system an average system again with a minimum divisor of 13 (4 Slams + 9 Tier Is), and make their points worth far more than any other tournament. The players will want to get into those events to get the most points and the highest ranking possible, but if they don't participate in one or two Tier Is, then they can make up the points at another smaller event without overdoing it.

Then you'll see the top players clamoring to get into all the big tournaments, and the second-tier players can play in the smaller Tier II/III/IV events in order to gain points and move their rankings up. The winner of a smaller event can also earn a "feed-up" spot in a Tier I to get a chance in the bigger event.

Thoughts?
Your suggestions are better than mandatories in any case. :)

-Sonic-
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:27 AM
I'm all up for Mandatory tournaments...

People are constantly criticising the ranking system. Part of the problem is that top players never all play at the same place, meaning that an imbalance occurs.

If everyone played at the same place more often, the BEST players would win these events and therefore their ranking would be HIGHER than those who just play lots.

The players who play lots will still win the weaker events, but they will have LOW scores on their mandatory tournaments, meaning a lower ranking overall. Then some of their weaker events will not count towards their ranking.

The mandatory tournaments will help contribute to a ranking system that rewards quality, and a tour that has a much better structure for fans as they will be better televised etc

Slutiana
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:43 AM
The big problem I have with htis "Road map" is the fact that Top players are restricted in the tournaments they play. They're not gonna be allowed to play many of the non mandatory tournaments and I think that that will be the death of the smaller tournaments.

OsloErik
Jul 18th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I didn't think the men were FINED when they don't play a Masters Series event, they just miss out on mandatory ranking points. That would be the most rational thing in my mind: make a certain number of Tier I's HAVE to count on their ranking (like, 8) but let them pick which 8 Tier I's they play in. They'd have 12 mandatory tournaments, but they'd have more flexibility than the men. I know that it wouldn't guarantee all the top 10 players, but you'd be pretty much assured at least half the top 10. But fining someone for not playing a tournament is just absurd.

Jem
Jul 18th, 2008, 02:09 PM
I'm sorry but that's bullshit - it's just another way of saying "you wanna play tennis? You have to play these tourneys." Sorry - I don't like it, and I never will, no matter how you word it, and I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you 10 million times about it.

I don't care what the men have - I don't follow mens tennis much at all, and they are two different tours, so really, what the men have has nothing to do with the WTA tour really. I never said the women couldn't HANDLE it - why does everyone think it's about handling things? I like people to be able to CHOOSE where they will play. Get it?
Why? Because women don't have mandatories people don't take the tour seriously? :lol: Come on. You think the average fan will even know what tourneys are mandatory and not?
They don't NEED mandatory events. They could at least give some choice. ie "you must play 3 out of 5 of these tourneys" - but I still don't like that idea either. You really think if a player doesn't want to play the tourney making it mandatory is gonna help? They will either a. not turn up, b. cite some minor injury c. tank. Great way to have top match ups.

Personally, I like mandatory events. You get the best players and let 'em rumble to see who's best that week. So much potential and really one of the reasons the ATP Tour has taken off. You can rely on the ATP players to show up where they're required -- with exceptions, of course, and due penalties. Mandatories are no the reason people don't take the WTA Tour seriously. Obviously, lots of people do. But from a business/sponsorship perspective, the WTA Tour is a mess for individual tournaments. You put up a gazillion dollars and get only a few top 10 players as many of the Tier1 tournaments have found out. You have more WTA stars than ever before and yet the WTA can't find the star power needed to give the tournaments their due. It makes you question the value of your investment. Frankly, that's one of the reasons I think Larry Scott has done a marvelous job securing sponsorships for the WTA. He's been selling a poor product in terms of professionalism week in and week out. And that's being said from someone who loves women's tennis, even if I find it a bit one-dimensional and boring these days.
Lots of times, when you're a professional, you have to do some things that aren't so great. I consider myself a professional and love my job for the most part. Of course, they're are some tasks/things I don't like. I have a choice; I can do those things or I can hit the road or face penalties in my job performance evaluation.
I know tennis is a bit more glamorous and the big stars have the right to be prima donas if they choose. But to me, it's the same principle. If they are going to be part of the WTA Tour, then they ought to follow the rules. If not, then they have the ability to set up their own lucrative exhibition schedules and play wherever they want. Ultimately, I don't think that's best for the game; it would fragment it even more. But if the powers-players prefer that scenario, then so be it.


All this said, I do believe an exception should be made for Venus and Serena at Indian Wells. They were treated horribly at that event and should not be required to play it or face penalities beyond the ranking hit they would take. It's like what Monica Seles faced when she opted to forgo the year-end championships in Germany.

stevos
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:51 PM
I'm sorry but that's bullshit - it's just another way of saying "you wanna play tennis? You have to play these tourneys." Sorry - I don't like it, and I never will, no matter how you word it, and I'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you 10 million times about it.

I don't care what the men have - I don't follow mens tennis much at all, and they are two different tours, so really, what the men have has nothing to do with the WTA tour really. I never said the women couldn't HANDLE it - why does everyone think it's about handling things? I like people to be able to CHOOSE where they will play. Get it?

Well, you know what I don't like?
When it's so easy to compare the success of the systems in the example of the Rogers Cup last year, where (as I mentioned) in Toronto we had a pitiful as usual cast of WTA Players, and Montreal had all of the top 20 without question. When are we even going to get CLOSE to that without some kind of mandatory ranking system? If people want to be ranked high, then they play what the rules tell them to play to get a high ranking, or you're right, they can just not play. Good for them, but I can't see why they wouldn't. Then there would be less withdrawals and less instances of women just not caring about non-Grand Slam events.
That's what I don't like. :)

TheFifthAvocado
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:29 PM
Why? Because women don't have mandatories people don't take the tour seriously? :lol: Come on. You think the average fan will even know what tourneys are mandatory and not?
They don't NEED mandatory events. They could at least give some choice. ie "you must play 3 out of 5 of these tourneys" - but I still don't like that idea either. You really think if a player doesn't want to play the tourney making it mandatory is gonna help? They will either a. not turn up, b. cite some minor injury c. tank. Great way to have top match ups.

You definitely missed my point. People don't take the WTA seriously because even in Tier 1 in lead up tournaments you rarely get more that 4 top ten players. This is how Chakvetadze in last years USO series or Jankovic in last years clay court season got so many points and high in the rankings without beating very many top players.

They NEED mandatory events to legitimize rankings, promote rivalries, and bring more money to the tournaments. If a player doesn't want to play in a certain tourney then they have to accept the consequences (maybe a fine, not a suspension but at least an automatic zero or something similar). This is their job after all and in all jobs there are certain deadlines you have to make whether your up to it or not and yes they can blow it off but they will also face consequences. Having 2 players in the top ten blow off a mandatory is way better than 6 of the top ten not playing a Tier 1 anyways.

PS I'm very proud Serena and Venus are standing up for what they believe in but it would only be remarkable if they got fined right? Or they would be standing up the face of nothing.

bad_angel_109
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:42 PM
they should at least give the players a week off between indian wells and miami, it's too muchI agree with that, its too much. You'll get fatigued easier and ur chances of getting an injury r like higher than wat they would be if u got like a week off between important tourneys.

Freakan
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:46 PM
They're so dumb:o Wta needs the players, the players don't need WTA. If WTA keeps doing this shit, players will eventually create their own association and WTA will just dissappear :o

Jem
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:18 PM
They're so dumb:o Wta needs the players, the players don't need WTA. If WTA keeps doing this shit, players will eventually create their own association and WTA will just dissappear :o
Oddly enough, that's what the players did -- created the WTA as a player's association. But perhaps, they need to blow it up and start again.

I do disagree; the players do need the WTA -- or something like it. Some entity has to manage the business and create some type of cohesiveness if the game is going to thrive. I suppose the very top players could create their own exhibition tours, tournaments, etc., but the game as a whole would suffer; opportunities would dry up.

terjw
Jul 18th, 2008, 10:28 PM
The whole idea of mandatory tournaments with fines or suspensions for players who don't play at these events is flawed IMO. The top players should be free to chose their own schedule wherever and whenever they want. Mind you with that freedom should comes a duty to take their committments seriously and not to withdraw except for genuine injuries. If players had total freedom what to enter - then they shouldn't withdraw because they are too tired.

Having said that - I'm all in favour of the principle of building up more big tournaments where all the top players play. I'd be happy for these tournaments to have to count for the rankings like Miami and the slams are now. So if you don't play you get zero ranking points. You are not telling the player to play there - but if she doesn't it could be bad for her ranking. Nothing wrong with that.

Top players should all be playing the big tournaments by making these tournaments prestigious events which are the most sought after events to win. Money, ranking points, prestige.

And what of our current mandatory tournaments:

Well it's actually a joke to say the slams are mandatory. Is there a single player who only plays at a slam is because it's mandatory - otherwise she'd skip it. Of course not. There is no need to say it's mandatory - players die to play at slams because they are slams.

And Miami. What good has that actually done making it mandatory. Did top players not play there before? No - they played it because it was a big event. In fact I think more top players may have skipped it since it was made mandatory than before when it wasn't.

As for the lunatic idea of suspending top players from mandatory events if they skip a mandatory event - that is absurd.

slydevil6142
Jul 18th, 2008, 10:45 PM
Maybe becuase there are alot of young people that post on here but the WTA is completly justified in its decision. This IS their JOB. When you start working you will realize that you are not going to be in an ideal situation. Its not the job of the tour to pander to the requests of every player. The tours job is to set up a system that MOST players can handel yet will serve the basic needs for the tour to do well. I love womens tennis much more than mens, but theres a reason why the mens tournment ALWAYS sell out and the women can hardly get anyone in the stands if its not a combined event. The tour has been forced ( mostly by sponsers who hello PAY THE BILLS) to find a way to make their investment count. If the tour loses its sponsers then there wont be money for anyone to make. If you dont like your job and its restirctions then QUIT.
I do believe there should be exceptions as in the case of venus/serena/monica (if she was still playing), but on the whole they need to suck it up like anyone else who works.