PDA

View Full Version : Australian Open - Maria Sharapova against rewarding early losers


tennis_pro
10-23-2012, 12:43 PM
Of course you don't care about 1st round losers, Maria. The more I want you to lose early.

NadalAgassi
10-23-2012, 05:01 PM
What did she say? Prize money should start in the round of 16.

Ico
10-23-2012, 05:19 PM
Sharapova said she doesn't agree with giving more to first-round losers, but does favor a larger increase for winners of lower-round matches.

Taken from TENNIS.com

I personally think champions, who need the money the least, should have their prize money capped at 1 million euros (maybe 1.5 million dollars) and have the rest redistributed to lower rounds. I do agree with Maria that the reward for actually winning a match should be far greater than just making it to the slam and losing.

Bartelby
10-23-2012, 05:39 PM
The WTA doesn't have any power to negotiate anything at the slams.

NadalAgassi
10-23-2012, 06:35 PM
Well I still disagree with Maria then. To even play in a Grand Slam Championship is a tremendous achievement and honor. Even the wild card gift entries must have done something to get recognized.

PeteD
10-23-2012, 06:43 PM
Have they ever revealed where the money comes from and where it goes?

beast of mallorca
10-23-2012, 06:46 PM
Maria is a playing like a greedy princess. Hope Serena beats her to a pulp..... again.

90's Clay
10-23-2012, 06:47 PM
All the more reason I can't stand this overrated, yelping russian goofball.

Come on Maria.. If you weren't sexy as hell and could play a little tennis, you would be just another hash slinger turning tricks on a street corner in Jersey.

Just to say you are competing in a grand slam is an accomplishment itself. Imagine all the people in the world playing tennis.. You have to be pretty damn good ( relative to the general population) just to make a grand slam appearance. That takes hard work and deserves some freakin compensation.

tennis_pro
10-23-2012, 10:22 PM
Sorry people forgot to add a link (it was long a** so I shortened it)

From ES:
http://tinyurl.com/9dojvlw

Bartelby
10-23-2012, 10:26 PM
Should play winner takes all in the slams, including both men's and women's tournaments.

Mustard
10-23-2012, 10:27 PM
Sharapova, and those who agree with her, completely fail to realise, in their greed, that low pay for the first round losers will ultimately harm the game as a whole. Although perhaps they don't care about the health of the professional game and only their own bank accounts. Just getting to the main draw of a major is an achievement in itself. Most tennis players in the world rankings will never get to the main draw of a major. In the overall picture, getting to the main draw of a major is a big success.

Say Chi Sin Lo
10-23-2012, 10:44 PM
She doesn't care for the 99%.

jones101
10-23-2012, 11:52 PM
I think the biggest increase should be from 2nd round onwards (though there should be some increase for r1).

It is possible that if there is a big increase in R1 money, the matches in r1 may not be as competitive, as players will know they will have a nice cheque regardless.

Not saying it shoulnt increase, but r2 onwards having the biggest increases would help keep early rounds more competive.

I'd like to see a 33% distributed from QF onwards and the remaining 67% distributed to early rounds ideally.

*Sparkle*
10-24-2012, 12:22 AM
I agree that there needs to be a suitable step up in prize money from R1 to R2, but there will be some up and coming qualifiers who get put against a top seed in round one. They will have virtually no chance of making it to the second round, but that doesn't mean they didn't put the effort in, or aren't faced with the same expenses to get there in the first place.

Making it to a grand slam in the first place is a massive achievement, and all players deserve proper financial reward for their contribution.

sdont
10-24-2012, 03:23 AM
I think the biggest increase should be from 2nd round onwards (though there should be some increase for r1).

It is possible that if there is a big increase in R1 money, the matches in r1 may not be as competitive, as players will know they will have a nice cheque regardless.

Not saying it shoulnt increase, but r2 onwards having the biggest increases would help keep early rounds more competive.

I'd like to see a 33% distributed from QF onwards and the remaining 67% distributed to early rounds ideally.

I think Bodo has the same point of view, which I don't agree with.

IMO, players in the first round give their best because it's a slam, not because they need the 2nd rd prize money.

With more money, first round losers would be more safe financially, spend more on equipment, training, etc. That could make them more competitive.

dominikk1985
10-24-2012, 03:52 AM
well there are two sides. on the one hand I think a qualifier or one that just got into the field by working hard should get some consideration.

on the other hand a 70 ranked player or so could be less motivated to win a game if she gets a good cheque anyway. tennis is about winning after all.

RAFA2005RG
10-24-2012, 04:14 AM
Come on Maria.. If you weren't sexy as hell and could play a little tennis, you would be just another hash slinger turning tricks on a street corner in Jersey.


She is sexy as hell?

Maybe if she put a paper bag over her giant head and added some life-like breast implants...

EDIT: Actually, that doesn't sound good. But it'd be an improvement...

elpolaco84
10-24-2012, 04:24 AM
bonus points and bonus $$$ for ousting a seeded player or a top ten at least

SLD76
10-24-2012, 06:44 AM
All the more reason I can't stand this overrated, yelping russian goofball.

Come on Maria.. If you weren't sexy as hell and could play a little tennis, you would be just another hash slinger turning tricks on a street corner in Jersey.

Just to say you are competing in a grand slam is an accomplishment itself. Imagine all the people in the world playing tennis.. You have to be pretty damn good ( relative to the general population) just to make a grand slam appearance. That takes hard work and deserves some freakin compensation.



.....being a NJ resident who neither slings hash or tricks herself out, I will educate you somewhat.

more than likely, maria would most likely be tricking herself out in either extreme north jersey close to NYC( large russian community) or she would be in atlantic city- alot of eastern europeans come to the shore to work, andrip some girls end up in atlantic city as strippers/hookers.

other than that, no, there arent russian hookers on every street corner.

back to the thread.

tacou
10-24-2012, 08:31 AM
I'd like to see a legit quote, but I have to agree with her, because it seems like she's saying only first round losers don't deserve a raise.

I'm not sure what the rules are with qualifiers, they should be getting paid more, but when increasing a tournament's prize money, why give extra to someone who doesn't win?

That money could go to second round losers, journeymen and young guys who struggled to get into the tournament and actually won a round.

I think prize money should go up for everyone, really, but someone who goes 0-1 at a slam doesn't exactly deserve a huge bonus.

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 08:46 AM
The thing people have to remember is that Sharapova and Nadal got paid the same amount of money last year for their RUP finishes. Now that's pathetic.

jones101
10-24-2012, 10:54 AM
I think Bodo has the same point of view, which I don't agree with.

IMO, players in the first round give their best because it's a slam, not because they need the 2nd rd prize money.

With more money, first round losers would be more safe financially, spend more on equipment, training, etc. That could make them more competitive.

I AGREE WITH BODO ON SOMETHING???? (please kill me)

*Sparkle*
10-24-2012, 11:16 AM
This may be entirely impractical, but perhaps there could be some kind of scheme where players who are new on the circuit get a tiny bit extra to help cover their costs while they work their way up the rankings and get to the break even point?

You would have to make sure it wasn't abused, but possibly worth the risk so that the future of the sport isn't just open to those with independent means.

Netspirit
10-24-2012, 11:17 AM
Sharapova? Sexy?

LOL. Are you guys posting from behind bars or something?

fps
10-24-2012, 11:21 AM
I'd like to see a legit quote, but I have to agree with her, because it seems like she's saying only first round losers don't deserve a raise.

I'm not sure what the rules are with qualifiers, they should be getting paid more, but when increasing a tournament's prize money, why give extra to someone who doesn't win?

That money could go to second round losers, journeymen and young guys who struggled to get into the tournament and actually won a round.

I think prize money should go up for everyone, really, but someone who goes 0-1 at a slam doesn't exactly deserve a huge bonus.

No no no. If you want a talent pool that's worth a damn in tennis, then there has to be enough money to make a good living even if you're not at the very, very top of the game. That means increasing the prize money at the lower end of slams, as it will encourage greater participation.

See football for instance, where there are many top players in many positions. This is not possible in tennis, but if you show potential in both you'll most likely go for football, because if you're VERY GOOD but not GREAT you're still going to make a really good living in football. And so potentially excellent and entertaining tennis players are lost.

fps
10-24-2012, 11:23 AM
This may be entirely impractical, but perhaps there could be some kind of scheme where players who are new on the circuit get a tiny bit extra to help cover their costs while they work their way up the rankings and get to the break even point?

You would have to make sure it wasn't abused, but possibly worth the risk so that the future of the sport isn't just open to those with independent means.

Players from the big countries tend already to get this from their own federations. I think a fairer distribution of prize money is important because it will strengthen the quality of the field, making for better matches earlier in slams, which will therefore be watched by more people, meaning more revenue, and so on.

Zarfot Z
10-25-2012, 03:07 AM
She is sexy as hell?

Maybe if she put a paper bag over her giant head and added some life-like breast implants...

EDIT: Actually, that doesn't sound good. But it'd be an improvement...

Nadal is more sexy in your eyes, no?