Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
26,933 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I think 60 points for a single win in a GS is way too much, simply because GS draws are very uneven for the lower-ranked players (50-100).
Some of them have to face Top 10-players while others get WC's or qualifiers ranked below 100.
An example would be Shenay Perry right now who has played like shit all season long and now might be gifted 60 points by WC Olivia Sanchez. Against anyone else she would probably lose.
That is the same amount of points you would get for winning a $75K challenger where you would have to beat five players, most of them being stronger than Sanchez.
It's bad when players can save their whole season by getting lucky draws and winning a single match at GS's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,099 Posts
Disagree, they do have to perform well to even be included in the MD. I guess its just about right, like an award for at least qualifying and winning your first match since Grand Slams are the biggest tournaments.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
35,630 Posts
For once I might agree with you. It makes challengers useless. I think the idea of bigger points for a third round is good, cause that includes beating a seed or at least someone who beat a seed.
 

·
Your fav could never....
Joined
·
9,158 Posts
Good post and i agree...60 points is a little too much

maybe 35/40 point is a more appropriate figure :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,560 Posts
40-50 is ok! 60 maybe a bit too much
 

·
Genie Bouchard of TF
Joined
·
108,499 Posts
it all has to do with the elimination of Quality-Points
wich was the worst decision the WTAtour made within the last 5 years
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
182,035 Posts
they upgraded the points for Tier I and II
and Miami is worth 30 pt for r1 so they doubled the pts for slams.

60 pts is good when your fav gets it ;) but not when a player you dont like gets 60 easy pts.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Moderator, Polish & Serbian Kingdo
Joined
·
119,559 Posts
I think it's good. The GSs are the most important tournaments of the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,074 Posts
I think it's fine for the first round of a Slam.
 

·
Black tea with rum
Joined
·
24,256 Posts
I saw this a couple of days ago and I thought the exact same thing! Raluca Olaru already has 31 points for qualifing to the MD and should she win tomorrow (or when the rain stops), she would have 91 points just for getting to the second round! That is too much for any tournament, I agree that 40 points would be a better option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,474 Posts
60 points IS a bit ridiculous. Yes, the Slams are the most important events of the year, but should winning a first round in a 128-player draw be worth half of what winning a tier III is worth? I mean, chances are that you beat at least 1 or 2 top 50 players to win the Tier III, while the first round GS win is more than 50% likely to have been over a non-top 50 player. :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Agreed, especially if you beat a girl like Alexandra Stevenson (if she ever gets to play another grandslam again) in the 1st Round
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
well Whitehead is ranked in top500-600 and thats way out of line....RG points come as a revelation after that

Note that its possible in future she gets a WC and plays another WC ranked 14400000+ and wins 23-21 in third set and gets 60 points. Now thats when WTA should close the bussiness!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,190 Posts
60 points for a first round win and only 90 for a second round win!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
The 60 points are alright with me. The difference between a tier 3 and a slam is that everyone takes a slam event seriously and all of the major players show up prepared. It's more difficult to advance to 3rd round of a slam than making QF of a tier 3 or SF of a tier 4. In fact, if you ask the players, they would rather make QF of a slam than winning a tier 3 or even tier 2. There is just a different level of anticipation.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top