None of that will matter if they choose an idiotic location with hurricane force winds and a court quickly constructed at the last minute...

 

When no country was willing to spend millions of dollars to host SwiYawnTek & Lukashenka what else could they have done?

 

They basically copied the ATP at long last. The GS winner rule has been used a lot in men doubles, let's see how it will pan out for women tennis.

Winning 1000, 500 and 250 points for a WTA 1000/500/250 makes so much more sense than 900, 470 and 280 points. Steve and Micky were both mediocre AF but to convince many tournaments to become WTA 500s in shitty calendar spots is quite extraordinary.

 

Not sure if I understood correctly, but this:

- Players must compete in eight WTA 1000/500 tournaments (except when long-term injury rules apply)

means 8 1000/500s collectively or 8 of each?

 

collectively .

 

I think this is a great change. Elena probably wishes it happened two years ago though lol.

 

Good luck to them whatever they do, this event has become a side show for years. It has some sort of artificial value that nobody can make sense off, one year 7 mil, the next year 14 the next year after 5 paid for by the WTA.

 

Yeh... the WTA Finals are a flop and will continue to be until the tours are merged.

 

Can they make a new rule for themself to have a venue locked in more than two weeks before the tournament starts?

 

Does this mean 125k and ITF points are now counted for the race?

 

No

 

this should have happened a long time ago

@ONS-GOAT

 

The change to allow the 8th player to be an actual slam champ form the same year is a great one.
Elena, Kim, a lot of players have been effected by the old rules and it has probably made the YEC less interesting overall the past 15 years or so.

 

Meh, I don't like the slam winner WC rule. Individual tournaments should not he elevated over the tour as a whole, and slams are already overrated to the detriment of the tour. If you can't qualify even with having 2000 slam points, you don't deserve to be there.

 

Emma Raducanu missed this opportunity

 

Would go 0-3 in RR in Bouchards fashion. Better 4 her.

 

What if a player outside the Top 70 all year (not ranked high enough for most WTA1000/WTA500), maybe a youngster coming up, wins US Open and also a WTA1000 after it, entering the Top 20 (maybe even Top 8), will they be allowed to play the WTA Finals, considering they didn't play eight WTA1000/WTA500 and were also not injured?


Raducanu in the year she won US Open could be an example of this also.

 

I'm pretty sure the slam rule is independent of the other rules.

 

The new rules seem fairly good, considering the early grapevine rumours. The eight commitment tournaments could become an issue in some cases - as I don't think the long-term injury rules apply to returnees from maternity leave (or do they)?

Note: the link to the rules goes to 2023 rulebook. Where is the official 2024 rulebook?

 

Note: the link to the rules goes to 2023 rulebook. Where is the official 2024 rulebook?

Not released for the public yet. Last year it was made public in February.

 

Since WTA has copied the ATP rules, I wonder if they will amend the number of points given for a loss. ATP gives zero points for a RR loss, WTA gives 125, which I think is not very reasonable.

 

This part really is the worst for me. Why are there such significant points given for just showing up? I get that these players have done the work to qualify but they shouldn’t get points by default which prop up their ranking the following year.

 

When they lost a lot of revenue for not qualifying the most popular player: Emma.

 

Can the 8th spot go to someone who hasn't played eight 1000/500 tournaments or does that apply to them as well?

 

only if they did not play because of long term injury