PDA

View Full Version : Should there be regular tournaments the week B4 the Slams?


*JR*
Jun 15th, 2011, 09:57 PM
My own view is no, that there's rampant tanking in the later rounds so players can be well rested for the Slams (where of course there are no Byes). They could just have exo's on the same surface for those who want the match play (with money and points awarded) up thru lets say the Thursday of that week.

If there's persistent rain and they don't have enough covered courts, they could just cancel these and give the attendees their choice of a refund or some special seating consideration for that Slam, or ATP and WTA events closer to them.

SAISAI-GOAT
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:22 PM
there should not be but there will be ... too much money at stake :shrug:

dsanders06
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:27 PM
Before the Australian Open and Wimbledon, yes, because there's so little time to warm up for either Slam, and the top players usually do put in a full effort in Sydney and Eastbourne.

But there shouldn't be Premier events the week before Roland Garros or the US Open. Maybe an MM or two for scrubs who desperately need some form, but not Premiers. It's humiliating for the sport to see the world #1 slaving away at Brussels or New Haven days before a Slam, after she's already played lots in the preceding weeks. :facepalm:

goldenlox
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:35 PM
Who's tanking? The matches Wozniacki played against Petrova & Dementieva at New Haven were marathons.
So were Wozniacki against Schiavone & Peng in Brussels.

bbjpa
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:46 PM
Yes , how could Dulgheru have 2 WTA titles if not :rocker2:

How could the Woz have Brussels and New Haven :o

How could Radwanska have a grass title :happy:

silverwhite
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:46 PM
Who's tanking? The matches Wozniacki played against Petrova & Dementieva at New Haven were marathons.
So were Wozniacki against Schiavone & Peng in Brussels.

:facepalm:

Venus3000
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:50 PM
As long as they are optional I don't see the problem. I don't think there should be any mandatory tournaments before slams though.

Vincey!
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:51 PM
I think it's fine like this, of course no Mandatory events and maybe no premier event, but before Wimbledon, where you only have 2 weeks to get ready for the Grass and Premier even has to be on the 2nd week since it's too much points to give to players who aren't really that prepared on Grass. I also think they should put at least 2 events each week on grass and not silly Copenhagen indoor. The idea of putting exos is quite silly since there's not enough players that can play those and Exos don't give ranking points or else they wouldn't be exos. The best idea would be to put smaller draw-size tourney,and playing in in less days. Specially for the Grass court season since they are in tough weather areas that can delay lots of matches. But I think the scheduling of tourneys is fine like it is, maybe just adding one more small grass court tourney in the first week. Why not a joint tournment with Halle?

terjw
Jun 15th, 2011, 10:58 PM
My own view is no, that there's rampant tanking in the later rounds so players can be well rested for the Slams (where of course there are no Byes). They could just have exo's on the same surface for those who want the match play (with money and points awarded) up thru lets say the Thursday of that week.

If there's persistent rain and they don't have enough covered courts, they could just cancel these and give the attendees their choice of a refund or some special seating consideration for that Slam, or ATP and WTA events closer to them.

Have you any proof? Or just a wild allegation with no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Just because a top player loses doesn't mean they tanked.

goldenlox
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Just looking at New Haven results.
Wozniacki won 2009,10 and made the F, SF of the USO.
Sveta won in 2007 & made the USO F
Henin won in 2006 & made the USO F
Venus won both in 2000, 2001
Capriati won NH in 2003 & lost a close USO SF to Henin.

Seems like a good warmup

dsanders06
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:09 PM
Just looking at New Haven results.
Wozniacki won 2009,10 and made the F, SF of the USO.
Sveta won in 2007 & made the USO F
Henin won in 2006 & made the USO F
Venus won both in 2000, 2001
Capriati won NH in 2003 & lost a close USO SF to Henin.

Seems like a good warmup

Wozniacki could and should have beaten Zvonareva to get to the final of the USO last year, and I believe would have done had she not spent so much energy beating Dementieva and Petrova to win some nothing tournament, rather than saving up energy and getting adjusted to the conditions in New York by practising there.

Kuznetsova had an absolute cakewalk to get to the final in 2007 (it was the first example of one half of the draw at a Slam turning to crap), so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Henin had played no matches at all since Wimbledon before she played New Haven in '06 due to injury, so she was refreshed enough to still go on a good run in NY.

In short, no.

goldenlox
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:14 PM
The last 5 years, 3 finalists and a SemiFinalist won NH.
You cant argue with that, because these NH fields arent great, but the USO results are great

dsanders06
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:17 PM
The last 5 years, 3 finalists and a SemiFinalist won NH.
You cant argue with that, because these NH fields arent great, but the USO results are great

LMAO, one can twist results any way you like to get any point you want to make :lol:

How about this...

Winners of the US Open:
2010: Clijsters - didn't play New Haven
2009: Clijsters - didn't play New Haven
2008: Serena - didn't play New Haven
2007: Henin - didn't play New Haven
2006: Sharapova - didn't play New Haven
...

Seems like a good warmup :)

I'm pretty sure a similar example can be drawn for players who've won RG in terms of playing the week before.

In The Zone
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:21 PM
There should be tournaments ALL THE TIME. The men and women of this sport are professionals. Part of being a professional is scheduling appropriately, taking care of your body, and learning when to peak.

If you are like some players, who like to peak for Brussels and Copenhagen, so be it. That's your (stupid) prerogative.

goldenlox
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:22 PM
A Tier 2 before a major, NH has great results, and thats players who win NH, play every match.
More than half the last 5 USO finals had a player who won NH in the USO final.
That is a 128 player draw, of course its a better field than NH, which is why NH has spectacular USO results

Every player entering NH isnt a USO contender. Its important for rank & file players to have these tournaments

faboozadoo15
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:36 PM
To get rid of these events would be silly. Aren't Eastbourne, Sydney, and New Haven always pretty popular with fans and players alike?

They also present good opportunities for mid-ranked players. It's bad enough that you need to be ranked so highly to play the week before the US Open that many players play a challenger.

KapitalL
Jun 15th, 2011, 11:48 PM
Since there are only 2 weeks of grass before Wimbledon then yes.
Anyways the GS's are the easiest tournaments physically for the top girls anyway (7 matches in 14 days, easy first couple of rounds, days off) so I dont see a problem.

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:00 AM
A Tier 2 before a major, NH has great results, and thats players who win NH, play every match.
More than half the last 5 USO finals had a player who won NH in the USO final.
That is a 128 player draw, of course its a better field than NH, which is why NH has spectacular USO results

Every player entering NH isnt a USO contender. Its important for rank & file players to have these tournaments

But no USO winners. In other words Goldy, a player may simply "run out of gas" @ the end of the Slam in question. Like sure lets say Caro can "play till she drops", but is she perhaps worn out @ the end of a Slam?

Anyhow, maybe exo's was the wrong word, though the WTA can award points for whatever it wants to. I meant something like events where while who wins affects the money and points (thus its match play, with crowds and something @ stake) its not a draw that narrows.

Like maybe you get a bunch of courts (with room for temporary stands if necessary) to supplement in this example Flushing Meadows and NH, and assign groups of 4 players to each; then each one plays each of the other 3 on Mon-Tue-Wed (or Tue-Wed-Thu, though that doesn't leave a rain day to end it then).



Have you any proof? Or just a wild allegation with no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Just because a top player loses doesn't mean they tanked.

Of course not, you think they'll put it on their websites? And its not an "allegation", as any Slam contender who goes all out to get a W, F, or SF of an event the week B4 a Slam is making a big mistake, IMO.

Venus3000
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:11 AM
Not to mention it is good for players just coming back from injuries to try to find some form before the slam ala Venus and Serena this week.

You can practice all you want but it isn't the same thing as real matches.

Natash.
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:13 AM
Some players like having a lot of matchplay. :shrug:

Dave.
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:17 AM
Yes.

What there shouldn't be are mandatory tournaments. Players should be able to make their own schedule to suit them the best and to how they want to prepare for the upcoming slam. It is a bit strange that along with putting so much emphasis on Mandatory/Premier5 tournaments, the new roadmap would also being in a Premier the week before RG. :scratch:

As has been posted, New Haven has proven success. Two of the most regular players there (Venus and Davenport), hardly ever played in Canada and so came into NH ready and not risking their USO. NH also happens to be very near to USO aswell.

delicatecutter
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:39 AM
I don't see the problem as long as they aren't mandatory. Each player has the choice to enter or not. It seems like nowadays it's considered detrimental to play the week before a Major, but I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. I defo don't think Schiavone tanked her SF against Golden Retriever but it did help her find a bit of form to reach the RG final. OTOH said Golden Retriever totally killed herself to beat Peng and then got her ass handed to her by Danielle Anotoxfa at RG R3. So who knows. Every player is different.

I think Wozniacki would kill herself if the fourth Slam in her calendar, New Haven, was eliminated. :awww:

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:23 AM
Not to mention it is good for players just coming back from injuries to try to find some form before the slam ala Venus and Serena this week.

You can practice all you want but it isn't the same thing as real matches.

True, and by expanding my initial suggestion from exo's to a bunch of "foursomes" playing 3 matches each in Round Robin format if they want pre-Slam warm-up play, a Venus or Serena would have gotten in 3 matches this week even if she lost the first one. And of course the foursomes could pair off for some doubles if they want, with points in that list awarded as well.



...I defo don't think Schiavone tanked her SF against Golden Retriever but it did help her find a bit of form to reach the RG final. OTOH said Golden Retriever totally killed herself to beat Peng and then got her ass handed to her by Danielle Anotoxfa at RG R3. So who knows. Every player is different.

I think Wozniacki would kill herself if the fourth Slam in her calendar, New Haven, was eliminated. :awww:

I may be the only person here who's totally neutral about both Caro and the W/S. ;)

delicatecutter
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:31 AM
I may be the only person here who's totally neutral about both Caro and the W/S. ;)

To be neutral in regards to Wozniacki is unacceptable. Either you are with us or you're against us. :armed:

Shvedbarilescu
Jun 16th, 2011, 05:31 AM
My own view is no, that there's rampant tanking in the later rounds so players can be well rested for the Slams (where of course there are no Byes). They could just have exo's on the same surface for those who want the match play (with money and points awarded) up thru lets say the Thursday of that week.

If there's persistent rain and they don't have enough covered courts, they could just cancel these and give the attendees their choice of a refund or some special seating consideration for that Slam, or ATP and WTA events closer to them.

Of course there should be. To be completely honest I find posters like you whose only concern is the elite players of the game and not the rank and file who clearly NEED warm up events, highly annoying.

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2011, 03:30 PM
Of course there should be. To be completely honest I find posters like you whose only concern is the elite players of the game and not the rank and file who clearly NEED warm up events, highly annoying.

Me - elite? Puh-leeze, I've openly posted what they'd consider heresy, like sponsorships generally being a big lie. (Anyone who'd choose a particular let's say camera because that famous inventor Maria Sharapova says on TV "make every shot a power shot" is a moron IMO).

So as a "compromise" I'll say OK, have the events the week B4 the Slams, but strictly limit how many the Top 30 or whatever can enter in the 2 weeks* B4 the Slam. In other words, lets give the non-elites the warmups (with a few waivers from Qualifying if needed for those who enter an MM).

* If the schedule were ever rationalized where the AO wasn't in the 3rd week of the season and Wimbly the 3rd on grass, I'd say in the 3 weeks leading up to the Slam, though with exo's or Round Robins permitted for players who want more prep on the surface.

================================================== =========================================

Vincey!
Jun 16th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Wozniacki could and should have beaten Zvonareva to get to the final of the USO last year, and I believe would have done had she not spent so much energy beating Dementieva and Petrova to win some nothing tournament, rather than saving up energy and getting adjusted to the conditions in New York by practising there.

Kuznetsova had an absolute cakewalk to get to the final in 2007 (it was the first example of one half of the draw at a Slam turning to crap), so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Henin had played no matches at all since Wimbledon before she played New Haven in '06 due to injury, so she was refreshed enough to still go on a good run in NY.

In short, no.

Alright, I'll say this lol...You have NO proof that Wozniacki can actually win a slam with or without playing the week before. I mean who knows if it's because she played with devotion as she's entitled to as a competitive player the week before if she couldn't beat Zvonareva last year. Is it because she won NH that she lost to Kim the year before? I don't think so, is it because of the Warm up tourneys she has played before she never won a slam? Highly doubt so too, or else she would have simply stopped playing those. Unless she's stupid which I doubt! Caro said it herself THIS year...She doesn't like to practice, she likes to "practice" during matches. There are NO PLAYERS that are forced to enter those events as none of those are mandatory and there're always player that want more match play.

But no USO winners. In other words Goldy, a player may simply "run out of gas" @ the end of the Slam in question. Like sure lets say Caro can "play till she drops", but is she perhaps worn out @ the end of a Slam?

Anyhow, maybe exo's was the wrong word, though the WTA can award points for whatever it wants to. I meant something like events where while who wins affects the money and points (thus its match play, with crowds and something @ stake) its not a draw that narrows.

Like maybe you get a bunch of courts (with room for temporary stands if necessary) to supplement in this example Flushing Meadows and NH, and assign groups of 4 players to each; then each one plays each of the other 3 on Mon-Tue-Wed (or Tue-Wed-Thu, though that doesn't leave a rain day to end it then).



Of course not, you think they'll put it on their websites? And its not an "allegation", as any Slam contender who goes all out to get a W, F, or SF of an event the week B4 a Slam is making a big mistake, IMO.

Honestly, you seem a bit too "motherly", players should be able to make their own schedule no need for anyone to take every players by the hand and bring them to this or that tournment. Most of the players at the top have a HUGE teams around them so they can make a good decision on their own. YOu have to be honest, you're against those warmup events cuz you think that the Slam contenders (top players) are affected. so don't say you care about the other players. If the players want to tank their matches it's their problem. It's always tricky to do that cuz you never know if it will come back and bite you in the ass. That being said, during a slam you play every other days so it gives them plenty of time to relax and recharge their batteries, because most of the players on a day match are way more relax and don't train as hard. The only thing that is bothering about those events if it's a player gets injured and can't play the slam the next week, but injuries are something that can happen in every matches at any time so they can't schedule or enter tournments being scared to get injured or not for the slam.

Marlene
Jun 16th, 2011, 06:31 PM
I'd like to see the WTA skip the usual Mon-Sun tournament scheme in the 2 weeks between the French Open and Wimbledon; there should be a single time slot from midweek-to-midweek instead.

Marlene
Jun 16th, 2011, 06:37 PM
Oh, and: The tournaments leading up to the US Open, the Australian and French Opens provide plenty of options for the players to prepare themselves in a way that works for them; they can play all of them, some of them, the week before, not the week before... basically, whatever they want. I don't see any reason to change this; it works.

rnwerner
Jun 16th, 2011, 06:56 PM
Only international Tournaments (280 points for winner) should be played one week before a slam.

They should move Brüssel, New Haven and Eastbourne to another week.
Why not Eastbourne two weeks before Wimbledon...
this would only be a problem for the FO finalists...

killerqueen
Jun 16th, 2011, 07:18 PM
I see no reason why not. It's not like they have Mandatory events before the Slams. :p I agree that maybe they should have lower level events though.

howardean
Jun 16th, 2011, 08:15 PM
Yeah, slams aren't everything. needing the energy to win 7 matches is only relevant for the most elite players in every slam, and who's to say that lower-ranked players can't ride a bit of momentum from a good pre-slam showing into a 3r or 4r finish, which most non-elite players would be more than thrilled with.

*JR*
Jun 16th, 2011, 08:48 PM
Yeah, slams aren't everything...

I suppose the #1 Slamless Sisterhood (JJ, Dina, and Caro) would tend to agree. :tape: