Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Let the elite players EAT the lesser players, thus clearing out some of the dead wood of the tour, and making way for talented newc

Within limits, I think they ought to let the tournaments rig the draws.

No moving anyone 'off their level', so I wouldn't let you move #9 to #8, or #3 to #2. But if a tournament only has two players who attract big crowds in it, they ought to, at the very least, be able to put them on opposite sides of the draw.

Right now, you could get Zvonareva and Capriati in the same tournament and have them meet in the first round. Think how many tournaments lost money because of Anna's sky-high appearance fees vs short time appearan-CES.

At the moment, Venus could play Serena in the QFs of OZ. The accounts payable clerk at OZ is NOT in favor of that idea, I assure you. So let the tournament seed Venus into whatever quarter of the draw the organizers like. Let the tournaments rig the draws.

No moving anyone 'off their level', so I wouldn't let you move #9 to #8, or #3 to #2. But if a tournament only has two players who attract big crowds in it, they ought to, at the very least, be able to put them on opposite sides of the draw.

The tournaments would move to protect their cash cows. If I pay 100 grand to a Gold Exempt player, I'm not having her play another Gold Exempt player in the 16's if I can avoid it. At the moment, Venus could play Serena in the QFs of OZ. The accounts payable clerk at OZ is NOT in favor of that idea, I assure you. So let OZ put Venus against any of the top four seeds they like. Just don't MAKE her one of the top four seeds.

Or as may be the case, maybe you figure the most telegenic tennis is Serena vs Justine. Put Venus on Serena's side of the draw, since she's kills Justine.

You'd probably need a rule that you couldn't be MOVED to face the same player more than twice a season or something, so some poor soul didin't keep being sent to be executed by Justine.

Is it fair?

No.

It isn't about fair. It's about finding a way to make sure more tournaments make money, so that there ARE more tournaments. For smaller tournaments with little TV revenue, that means selling tickets. Selling tickets requires stars. Giving the tournaments a little more control over that isn't heresy.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
JollyRoger said:
Somehow a thread by Volcana called "A modest proposal"...not! :p
It wasn't called 'a modest author's proposal'. :) I hope the literary reference wasn't entirely lost on you, however.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
CC said:
I like the idea of the elite eating the lesser players better. Especially the fresh young ones who still have their baby fat. :lick:
A richer experience for all, a certain end to poor play, though we'd have to sit down to dinner and cook up the AER in a better way, at some point.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,151 Posts
Volcana said:
A richer experience for all, a certain end to poor play, though we'd have to sit down to dinner and cook up the AER in a better way, at some point.
Indeed. We would certainly rid ourselves of those nagging grievances about lack of depth on the women's tour. ;)

Lol @ Felly :D
 

· Chionophile
Joined
·
40,244 Posts
No I think that's a bad idea. So you're saying that the tour should bow to popularity of the players rather than their talent? No that's not a sport, that's a TV show or fashion parade.

My suggestion is:

Have exhibition sets between top players between real matches for entertainment purposes. This would be especially so for AnnaK, if she loses early in a tournament.
 

· Chionophile
Joined
·
40,244 Posts
One more thing:

Volcana said:
At the moment, Venus could play Serena in the QFs of OZ. The accounts payable clerk at OZ is NOT in favor of that idea, I assure you. So let OZ put Venus against any of the top four seeds they like. Just don't MAKE her one of the top four seeds.
I can tell you that Australian fans don't care much for Venus nor Serena. They're not hated, but they're not absolutely loved either. The Australian Open womens' final will be sold out and watched as much as if it was an an all-Williams final if it was a no-Williams final. I can guarantee you that. And believe me they wouldn't separate the Williams even if they get a chance like that.

Unless of course you're talking from an American-centric point of view. But then you'll really have to separate the Davenports and Capriatis in your draws too, not just Williams.

This seems like nothing much but an attempt to get your two favourites separated in draws until the final, Volcana.
 

· HAND SCRAPED
Joined
·
6,694 Posts
Well it might mean that the attractions are there until the end or whatever, but it would only compound the problems that people think there are due to say, 32 seeds in the grand slams.

where would all the good matches before the semi finals come from? having the number one take on the number 128 in the first round and number 89 in the second are going to be complete blow outs.

the only close matches would come when someone ranked 23 comes up against the 24 ranked player etc, which isn't really good for the sport as the people will only care about the star attractions. not going to get the mid 20's and mid 30's ranked player matchups on prime time, just the 6-0 6-1 blow outs by the top 10 of people who only just scraped into the draw
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,100 Posts
I was surprised how much support Kim was getting against Lindsay a californian gal in california last week - the crowd seem to ooh and ahh in the right places because they appreciated Kim's playing style. I also seem to remember US crowds cheering Amelie on against a sister - knowing who to fix where in the draw just isn't going to be easy - particularly until we find out if Kim-Justine GS finals are even more dire and predictable than Serena's romps through Venus..
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,624 Posts
I understand where you are coming from, however I'm trying to picture how a young player (Zvonareva for example) would feel about being a higher seed than a healthy Monica and having Monica PLACED into a 3rd round match with her when the other options would be the like of Nathalie Dechy or Magui Serna. Supposing this done to put Monica into a marquee match with say Jennifer in the 4th round instead of the 3rd. Then she gets her ass kicked. How does she feel about Monica, how does she feel about Jennifer, and how does she feel about the tour? And does she withdraw in a huff the next time someone is moved into her section?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,954 Posts
i don't really agree. i sort of think it could be good but it could be very bad aswell. what if both venus and serena are playing and they are put on opposite sides of the draw, that would pretty much screw the others out of a chance of getting to the final, it would make the draw on that side more open and more interesting. on the other side of things we would get 2 of the best players playing in the final. but i think the way they do it now is the best thing to do and the fairest on all players.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Sam L said:
One more thing:

I can tell you that Australian fans don't care much for Venus nor Serena. They're not hated, but they're not absolutely loved either.
They aren't the only players on the tour, it's just an example. The tour director could just as easily decide that they wanted their ex-champs lasting as long as possible, so they move Lindsay and Jenn. The point is the tournaments are always complaining about not getting enough stars, and players pulling out. This would give them ore control, while still being basically fair to the players.

This seems like nothing much but an attempt to get your two favourites separated in draws until the final, Volcana.
Not for nothin', but they've been doing pretty well without my help. And I'm sure a person of your imagination can just as easily imagine tournament directors making them play each other as early as possible. But perhaps I over-estimate you.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Gowza said:
i think the way they do it now is the best thing to do and the fairest on all players.
It the fairest, no question. Like I said, I'm not trying to solve a fairness issue. I'm looking at solutions to thing TOURNAMENT DIORECTORS are complaining. Not the WTA, not the ITF, not the players.

The tournaments are losing money. Not Indian Wells, Miami, ROme, but who'd have believed Germany would lose their second biggest tournament? And attendance at the California Tier II's wasn't exactly record-breaking. The strategy of marketing stars is only good for the tournaments if the players show up. Tournaments want more control over that. That's what the idea of having a 'Master's Series' on the women's side is ultimately about. The tournaments being guaranteed stars late into tournaments. That's what sell tickets.

How can we help the tournaments?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
24,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Gowza said:
i think the way they do it now is the best thing to do and the fairest on all players.
It the fairest, no question. Like I said, I'm not trying to solve a fairness issue. I'm looking at solutions to thing TOURNAMENT DIORECTORS are complaining. Not the WTA, not the ITF, not the players.

The tournaments are losing money. Not Indian Wells, Miami, ROme, but who'd have believed Germany would lose their second biggest tournament? And attendance at the California Tier II's wasn't exactly record-breaking. The strategy of marketing stars is only good for the tournaments if the players show up. Tournaments want more control over that. That's what the idea of having a 'Master's Series' on the women's side is ultimately about. The tournaments being guaranteed stars late into tournaments. That's what sell tickets.

How can we help the tournaments?

I think some fairness is going to have to be sacrificed.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top