Tennis Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I posted this under "Lindsay withdraws" but I thought that maybe I should give it its own thread.

Given the increasing chances of injury when someone plays consecutive weeks and keeps winning, do you think that the WTA should come up with some type of "Match Limit" where a player could only play "X" number of matches within a given period of time...so that they don't overshedule themselves toward injury?

Benefits:<br />- fewer injuries due to overplaying.<br />- makes fatigue withdrawals look more "legitimate."<br />- forces players into a much needed break.<br />- might encourage players to schedule more on less desirable surfaces.

Disadvantages:<br />- players that stay relatively healthy (like Hingis) could be put at a disadvantage.<br />- hurts player rankings for those who like to load up on one particular surface.<br />- It might encourage a player to TANK at a lower tier tournament so they could compete in a higher tier later.

(I'll add more to these lists if you can think of more...just to make the list easier to read.)

NOTE: It's "Match Limits," not "Tournament Limits." If someone keeps losing in the first round they can move onto next week's tournament if they like.

Any thoughts?
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
i think no. because i think a player is a much better judge of when they need to stop playing than a rule book. if the player really wants to risk such injury, they should learn, because theres no point in like you said, stopping a hingis or something...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,358 Posts
Not match limits. But tournament limits. I'm all for players playing a full schedule of 18 to 22 tournaments. But most of them play too much. This was Davenport's fourth straight week of tennis, right? And she made the finals or won the title in those 4 straight tournaments. That's alot of tennis at the end of a long year, in which Lindsay had already suffered a knee injury. Injuries are hurting women's tennis. Is it just bad luck? Or will this terrible trend continue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,270 Posts
no.<br /> I mean you say it is ok to play 18-22 tourneys but who is anyone to judge that on a bases for enough tourneys. Every person is different and only the individual knows their body. A player can get injured by playing 4 tourneys. I dont think if one plays 18-22 tourneys that it is gonna be any differnet.

All they have to do is get smart like the Williams family and play tourneys that are limited according to a day to week bases. Dont worry about conforming to a set standard. Transcend <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I realized you meant match limits but that is not gonna happen. Aint no way. In my opinion I think it is too high handed of an idea. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

All people have got to do is play less tourneys.. period. That will surely help imho. At least they will be 100% for the slams and big ones. and not be so burned out or peak too soon. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Dawn Marie ]</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
When I'm referring to "periods of time" I'm saying "Player X could only play a total of 18 matches in four weeks." (I just arbitrarily pulled that number out BTW.) I'm talking about relatively short periods of time.

So instead of scheduling four tournaments in four weeks a player would be limited to playing three within four weeks should they somehow manage to advance far in everything they enter. (Something along those lines.)

I'm not saying that "Match Limits" would necessarily work or be good at all. But I do think that there are a handful of players who are overdoing it within short periods of time.

In fact, I think there are too many random factors for a system like this to "work": surfaces (some surfaces are kinder than others; the fact that the grass season is just four weeks), the spacing of the Tier I events (a lot of them are scheduled so close together), Slam considerations (the time between Roland Garros and Wimbledon), what you do with qualifiers, what if someone is off by just one, etc.

I don't think limiting tournaments is a good answer either. The Testuds and Farina Elias of the tour need them. I don't think Tauziat was ever injured. And Hingis didn't really have much of a problem with playing a lot. But the thing with some of these who schedule a lot is that they lose a lot and don't end up playing as many matches.

The thing with this Davenport injury situation is that some of us saw this coming from ten miles away.

If players are willing to overschedule themselves towards injury, so be it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Best 17. I just think these girls should learn how to schedule better...and be willing to play on surfaces that they don't necessarily favor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,315 Posts
Neither match limits nor tournament limits would be a good idea.

Do we rob Tatiana Panova of her right to make a living because we figure telling Lindsay Davenport when she is allowed to play might keep her healthy? Panova only played 48 matches in 28 tournaments. If you held her to 20, she might look for a job outside tennis. Then where is your depth?

Suppose we set a limit on matches? With Martina injured, Monica staying out of Germany, both Williams staying home (until Serena this week), and JenCap working a relatively light schedule this fall, exactly what kind of field would you have had last week in Linz if you told Lindsay she couldn't play? For that matter, would Jelena have been risking her eligibility for the year-end championship by entering Linz after being a Zurich Finalist?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,270 Posts
I really think that the tourneys are their to pick and choose and play. The person knows their body so they have to accomindate accordingly. The problem is were going bonkers over certain people getting hurt. If those that were getting injured were ranked from 50-100 or 100 on down we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Also I didn't see this injury coming at all. I did see Monica imho overdoing it right before the US open and peaking to soon. And coming back way too soon from injury. Anna same way. The best way to control imho injury and loss of play is to limit the schedule. Actually 15 tourneys is fine with me for the entire year. Just because the WTA says 18-22 is the norm don't mean it is the healthies way to maintain a power game.

This is a good topic by the way.. nice viewpoints. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
 

·
Plainclothes Division
Joined
·
6,350 Posts
Put me in with the "no" brigade. It's like I've always said, you can't legislate common sense.

In this case, Lindsay knew what the risks were. Every time she plays a bunch of tournaments in a row, she gets hurt. And despite her claims about not caring about the #1 ranking, she added yet another tournament to her schedule.

About the only way they could protect the players from their own bad judgements is to actually lengthen the season by adding off weeks in-season, particularly during stretches of tourneys on hard surfaces. But the players would gripe about the shortened "offseason" (exhibition season).
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top