PDA

View Full Version : Serena Williams has never planned to play Charleston in 2009


Kuti Kis&Monica
Apr 12th, 2009, 02:12 PM
http://tenfem.streetreporters.net/?p=1208

Dementieva had accepted a wild card the 25th of March. So there were 4 players from the top 6 in Charleston field. Though, Charleston didn't increase their dotations (3 players = 1.000.000 dollars ; 4 players = 1.400.000 dollars).

Then, total surprise : Serena withdrew the 10th of April. So the 1.000.000 dollars prize was finally good with the contracts of the WTA.

The paper (french website) explains that it shows Serena's been asked to go to Marbella and already knew she could easily withdraw because Dementieva would replace her anyway. But WTA only announced at the last minute the withdrawal of Williams at the last minute to sell more tickets. Any french reader could make a full translation ?

serenus_2k8
Apr 12th, 2009, 02:30 PM
Your summary is right. The article states that it had been known for a while that Serena wasnt going to play, and hence when Elena accepted the WC on the 25th, they didnt bother paying more to the WTA because it was clear Serena wouldnt play. The reason given is that because Serena had obligations to turn up to Marbella, there was no way out of it, and therefore she couldnt pull out of Charleson, but go to Marbella and play.

It also says that Elena is playing too much and this will weaken (?) her, ie she will play worse as the year progresses, which was evident in IW and Miami.

It also talks a littlt bit about the dissapointing level of play on the womens tour that hasnt really been helped by the roadmap system, and the Serena and Elena are both victims and yet they are to blame for not saying anything, and hopefully in the future, the younger generation will follow Radwanskas footsteps and speak out about the problems with the tour rather than staying quiet to keep their money.

frenchie
Apr 12th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Radwanska pointed this problem out earlier this year in Paris and the board insulted her for speaking out:rolleyes:

2Black
Apr 12th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Well, Remember Davenport called out the Wta a few years ago ... it was classic Lindsay & I started loving her after she said it.

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Radwanska pointed this problem out earlier this year in Paris and the board insulted her for speaking out:rolleyes:

I know. Ridiculous comments berating Aga - but not from me. I fully supported Aga and what she said. All these rules on where a player can and cannot play are wrong. But the rules forbidding a player to play at a tournament are the worst and the WTA can easily prevent a player from playing as opposed to forcing a player to play somewhere.

This limit on number of top players that can play a tournament whether it be Charleston or wherever is ridiculous and either fuels dishonesty and deception or penalises a good tournament that has made itself attractive enough that players want to play there or both.

I'd have preferred it if Serena had earlier just said this herself and not been a silent partner to this dishonety from the WTA.

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Stuttgart is listed as a 700k event and has 4 top 6 players on its entry list

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Radwanska pointed this problem out earlier this year in Paris and the board insulted her for speaking out:rolleyes:

Now that Aga is out of top-10 she can play all MM tournaments in the world. Her problem has been solved.

As for Dementieva, nobody could force her to play at Auckland, Sydney or Paris. She could have easily tanked those meaningless tournies and saved herself for AO, IW and Miami. And the rules are there to bend them.

cyannnnn
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:38 PM
it's a very great article

the wta will kill all the good players for what MARKETING...
the wta already kills sharapova. remember she took cortisone in 2007. the wta prefer she took that and shows her face to win some money that to cure. now look the consequence
i like what Radwanska says she will be a good player and rebel for the next generation:):worship:
the wta player must do a boycoot. now it's not sport but marketing. i don't know how many players play for money and how for tennis. i hope there are more for tennis...:rolleyes:
the best two part
Les conséquences ? La WTA envoie Dementieva jouer un énième tournoi (c’était soit elle ou Safina) , alors qu’elle a déjà beaucoup trop joué cette année, ce qui va forcément amoindrir, à long terme (et on a déjà pu le voir à Indian Wells et Miami) sa qualité de jeu et sa résistance physique d’ici la fin de l’année. Alors que les meilleures devraient s’affronter dans des grands rendez-vous bien agencés dans le calendrier, la direction du circuit WTA préfère prendre un maximum d’oseille : surtout ne pas perdre l’augmentation des dotations en argent à Charleston et à Marbella, quitte à ce que la N°1 mondiale joue, sans motivation, sur une jambe, en perdant contre la 95ème mondiale d’un tournoi de catégorie inférieure. Quitte à ce que Dementieva finisse sur les rotules et joue comme un pied au Masters de fin d’année. Et puis aussi, annoncer le forfait de Serena Williams a permis de vendre un maximum de tickets sur le nom de la N°1 mondiale, alors qu’ils savaient très bien depuis longtemps qu’elle ne jouerait pas. Les fans ont dû être ravis en apprenant la nouvelle. L’image de la WTA est donc bien ternie, vu le mépris et l’indifférence que la direction montre pour le jeu et ses spectateurs.

and

Serena Williams et Dementieva sont évidemment à la fois victimes et complices de ce système. Victimes, parce qu’elles sont “désignées” pour aller jouer ces tournois, ce qui peut avoir un impact grave sur toute une saison, en termes de résultats et de fraîcheur physique. Mais elles sont aussi complices de la démarche en jouant le jeu : Radwanska a été “obligée ” de jouer à Paris-Coubertin pour remplir les obligations contractuelles de la WTA, comme elle nous l’a raconté en février dernier devant une assistante de com’ WTA qui se liquéfiait devant les déclarations de la Polonaise. (i love this girl)C’est une pratique qu’elle a dénoncé, et ce n’était pas la première fois que cela lui arrivait. Même si cela ne leur plaît pas forcément, Williams et Dementieva font le job mais ne disent rien, parce qu’il y a quand même beaucoup de cash à ne pas négliger (que ce soit de la part des organisateurs du tournoi, ou de la WTA elle-même, qui récompense à la fin de l’année les joueuses qui ont bien obtempéré au planning du circuit). A l’avenir, il serait souhaitable que les nouvelles générations, à l’instar de Radwanska, prennent davantage de responsabilités en mettant en lumière ces pratiques qui ne font qu’entâcher leur sport.

serenus_2k8
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:43 PM
Who is the woman 2nd from the left on the top of the page?

bandabou
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Odd..aeems like the only big title Serena even bothers to defend is Miami.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:46 PM
As for Dementieva, nobody could force her to play at Auckland, Sydney or Paris. She could have easily tanked those meaningless tournies and saved herself for AO, IW and Miami. And the rules are there to bend them.


Elena would have 11 tournaments instead and would be 5 in the world today .

Uranus
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Gosh this roadmap really is a disaster.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:52 PM
Elena would have 11 tournaments instead and would be 5 in the world today .

AO and Miami could have been a good compensation for prestigious ASB Classic and Medibank International titles, I believe.

Kuti Kis&Monica
Apr 12th, 2009, 03:57 PM
Stuttgart is listed as a 700k event and has 4 top 6 players on its entry list

Let's play to the games :
1/ "Who will withdraw?"
A) Jankovic, B) Safina C) Zvonareva, D) Dementieva

or

2/"Will they increase the prize-money ?"

If they want to keep them all, they need to go from 700.000 to 1.400.000 :eek:

I guess lena D will withdraw because she came to Charleston :devil: They'd only need o increase to 1.000.000 :angel:

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 12th, 2009, 04:12 PM
Zvonareva was not top-6 at the beginning of the season though.

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Gosh this roadmap really is a disaster.

I think the concept is right and it's not a disaster - yet anyway. They should keep the concept but scrap some of the rules. The more rules you have - the more dishonesty, and bending the rules there will be and the more unfairness like preventing a player playing somewhere that means a lot to them.

Really - if the tournaments the WTA want all the top players to be in are attractive enough and have so many ranking points that missing them for MM tournaments will adversely affect your ranking - the top players will turn up there and just having extra rules to make them play doesn't work because you can never ultimately force players to play anyway.

But there should never be a rule preventing a top player from entering a tournament (something the WTA can easily enforce and do). And encouraging / telling players to keep quiet about withdrawal intentions so as to sell tickets based on a lie is beyond contempt.

Ciarán
Apr 12th, 2009, 06:43 PM
:yawn:

serenus_2k8
Apr 12th, 2009, 06:52 PM
:yawn:

Congrats on a great post :yeah:

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 12th, 2009, 06:52 PM
could you imagine the same scenario on the ATP :lol:

never in a million years.

serenus_2k8
Apr 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM
The WTA is a long way off the ATP :sobbing:

starin
Apr 12th, 2009, 07:18 PM
What does the article mean by Serena was obligated to play Marbella?

I thought Serena was overplaying. I can't understand why she would play Marbella after being injured in Miami. But I knew something like this would happen last year because the Roadmap is forcing Serena to play 17 (?) tournaments when she normally plays 13-15 max. That means forced overplaying for Serena. And what does forced overplaying mean? injury.

Brooks.
Apr 12th, 2009, 09:58 PM
that really upsets me b/c family circle made it very clear to me that Serena was expected to play before I bought my tickets. it's just so shady and wrong. makes me not want to support the wta at all.

Galsen
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:02 PM
that really upsets me b/c family circle made it very clear to me that Serena was expected to play before I bought my tickets. it's just so shady and wrong. makes me not want to support the wta at all.
:sad: poor you

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:09 PM
But I knew something like this would happen last year because the Roadmap is forcing Serena to play 17 (?) tournaments when she normally plays 13-15 max. That means forced overplaying for Serena. And what does forced overplaying mean? injury.


Oh, please :rolleyes: Don't try to make the Roadmap responsible for Seren's injuries. Serena has no one but herself to blame for her idiotic tournament schedule. With the new Roadmap players have to play less than they had to play before. And the reason why she even bothered to play Marbella was most likey 1% WTA. By 99% it was $$$. :tape:

starin
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:34 PM
Oh, please :rolleyes: Don't try to make the Roadmap responsible for Seren's injuries. Serena has no one but herself to blame for her idiotic tournament schedule. With the new Roadmap players have to play less than they had to play before. And the reason why she even bothered to play Marbella was most likey 1% WTA. By 99% it was $$$. :tape:

wrong. Serena has to play more than she did before.

Most players have to play less but Serena has to play more. Same for Venus but Venus always played more than Serena so it's not as much a problem for her. If it was really mostly about the money then why does the article say Serena was obligated to play Marbella? that's why I asked.

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Under the new Roadmap players have to play less than before and that is true for all players.

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:49 PM
Radwanska pointed this problem out earlier this year in Paris and the board insulted her for speaking out:rolleyes:


I think that was a bit different, though. As far as I remember Radwanska complained that as a Top 10 player she can only play one MM tourneys every 6 months and that she had to play Paris Indoors instead of Pattaya. And the rule to prevent the top players to play endless MM tourneys is good so there'a no need to "speak out".

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 10:58 PM
wrong. Serena has to play more than she did before.

Most players have to play less but Serena has to play more. Same for Venus but Venus always played more than Serena so it's not as much a problem for her. If it was really mostly about the money then why does the article say Serena was obligated to play Marbella? that's why I asked.

No! You are wrong here and Matt01 is completely correct in saying that Serena is required to play less this year than before. In 2008 - the rules required gold exempt players 1-6 to play 12 tier 1 or 2 tournaments (including at least 7 tier 1 and Miami) plus the 4 grand slams plus the YEC if the player qualifies which she did. That's 12+4+1=17 tournaments in 2008 she was required to play.

You are confusing the number of tournaments she was required to play with the number she actually played and that she broke her player committment contract.

starin
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:08 PM
No! You are wrong here and Matt01 is completely correct in saying that Serena is required to play less this year than before. In 2008 - the rules required gold exempt players 1-6 to play 12 tier 1 or 2 tournaments (including at least 7 tier 1 and Miami) plus the 4 grand slams plus the YEC if the player qualifies which she did. That's 12+4+1=17 tournaments in 2008 she was required to play.

You are confusing the number of tournaments she was required to play with the number she actually played and that she broke her player committment contract.

How many is she required to play under the Roadmap? on the website it says 10 but from what I heard about the Roadmap that doesn't sound right.
She may have been required to play 17 tournaments before but she never did and the punishments were never severe enough to force her to. But from what I understood about the Roadmap is that the punishments are a lot tougher and while she maybe required to play less than 17 tournaments she actually has to play all those tournaments. That's what I meant by forced overplaying.

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:30 PM
How many is she required to play under the Roadmap? on the website it says 10 but from what I heard about the Roadmap that doesn't sound right.
She may have been required to play 17 tournaments before but she never did and the punishments were never severe enough to force her to. But from what I understood about the Roadmap is that the punishments are a lot tougher and while she maybe required to play less than 17 tournaments she actually has to play all those tournaments. That's what I meant by forced overplaying.

The fines are tougher - but that's not what you said before when you said Matt01 was wrong. And a lot of what people call fines isn't a fine at all. Its not getting the bonuses in return for abiding by the rules. Don't tell me she can't afford to lose her bonus or pay the fines though. I don't believe that.

As far as her obligation to play Marbella - who knows exactly what that was. Once she'd agreed to play there though - that's an obligation. Players also sometimes have obligations through there agents to play a tournament which has nothing to do with the WTA.

The WTA would have had nothing to do with making her play at Marbella and risking her not playing at Charleston. The rules do not support this claim and the roadmap philosophy runs counter to the idea if it risked not playing at Charleston. And finally - the WTA can't actually make any player play anywhere if they really don't want to as you know perfectly well from IW. Least of all Serena who can afford any fines or loss of bonuses.

Marshmallow
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:38 PM
yada yada yada

As far as her obligation to play Marbella - who knows exactly what that was. Once she'd agreed to play there though - that's an obligation. Players also sometimes have obligations through there agents to play a tournament which has nothing to do with the WTA.

etc etc etc

So then is it still possible that Serena may have been "advised" by the WTA to play a small tournament like Marbella, (and Venus Acapulco) to perhaps prevent further fines against them (more than suspended bonus portions) for not playing Indian wells. Could the 'obligation' be based on this concept in some way?

Curious. :)

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:43 PM
How many is she required to play under the Roadmap? on the website it says 10 but from what I heard about the Roadmap that doesn't sound right.


Sorry - I didn't answer this in my previous reply. That figure of 10 doesn't include the 4 grand slams or the YEC if a player qualifies. So it's really 15.

Slutiana
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:51 PM
I dont Get it though, comparing the two williams. It looks like Serenahas been whoring up the tournaments to keep up with the roadmap: Sydney, AO, Paris, Dubai, Miami, Marbella compared with Venus' AO, Dubai, Acapulco, Miami, Charleston. Im probably not right but do you think that maybe Serena entered Charleston almost with the idea of withdrawing at that last minute to almost tick off one of the tournaments she was required to enter because I think the rules say you have to enter x amount of tournaments rather than play in them? Therefore she'll be able to play less tournaments.... :confused:

terjw
Apr 12th, 2009, 11:59 PM
So then is it still possible that Serena may have been "advised" by the WTA to play a small tournament like Marbella, (and Venus Acapulco) to perhaps prevent further fines against them (more than suspended bonus portions) for not playing Indian wells. Could the 'obligation' be based on this concept in some way?

Curious. :)

Well nothing is impossible. But it doesn't make any sense. It runs completely counter to the whole thing the WTA want with the roadmap which is for top players to play the big tournaments and not the smaller tournaments.

As far as preventing any further fines are concerned - it doesn't help her one iota. The rules are pretty clear on penalties and playing Marbella ain't gonna help her on that score. Just the opposite in fact cause now she might get a late withdrawal fine for withdrawing from Charleston.

I think far more likely is she gave an undertaking to Conchita or someone in person (nothing to do with the WTA) and that this obligation mentioned was not welching on a committment she'd given to someone in person.

CJ07
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:21 AM
I would just have 2 mandatory tournaments preceding the grand slams and then let the players play wherever and whenever theyw anted. All that matters is that the largest and most well known tournaments have full fields and then leave it up to the free market to determine the best of the rest.

Done.

terjw
Apr 13th, 2009, 12:25 AM
I dont Get it though, comparing the two williams. It looks like Serenahas been whoring up the tournaments to keep up with the roadmap: Sydney, AO, Paris, Dubai, Miami, Marbella compared with Venus' AO, Dubai, Acapulco, Miami, Charleston. Im probably not right but do you think that maybe Serena entered Charleston almost with the idea of withdrawing at that last minute to almost tick off one of the tournaments she was required to enter because I think the rules say you have to enter x amount of tournaments rather than play in them? Therefore she'll be able to play less tournaments.... :confused:

The rules use the words "play" and "commit to" and clearly do not mean that it's OK to enter and then withdraw just beforehand.

Serena has withdrawn so many times in the past - so maybe she just doesn't think anything of entering with the intention of withdrawing and did intend to withdraw all along. I hope not.

To be honest - I reckon she just didn't think when she drew up this schedule how absurd it was flying off to Spain from Miami, then back to the States, then back to Europe.

charmedRic
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:25 AM
Radwanska pointed this problem out earlier this year in Paris and the board insulted her for speaking out:rolleyes:

i know!!

2Black
Apr 13th, 2009, 03:35 AM
Did you all forget when Davenport EXPOSED the WTA a couple of years ago? I wish someone would find the evidence when she said the WTA will know well in advance that a certain player is not playing a tournament but will wait til the last minute to announce it ... something similar to that. It's very very shady. You guys must be new

hablo
Apr 13th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Did you all forget when Davenport EXPOSED the WTA a couple of years ago? I wish someone would find the evidence when she said the WTA will know well in advance that a certain player is not playing a tournament but will wait til the last minute to announce it ... something similar to that. It's very very shady. You guys must be new

I remember that - makes the player look bad when it fact it is a WTA shady practice that has been going on for a while (only the players aren't all as outspoken as Lindsay)!

~Eclipsed~
Apr 13th, 2009, 04:35 PM
All these rules for playing tournaments and how many top players can play at an event according to it's status are :weirdo: .