Bruguera lost in the semifinals to Paul Harhuis (aka the McEnroe killer from the US Open who's better well-known as the guy who couldn't put away an overhead against Connors at the US Open) in the Delta seniors masters cup today.
The weird thing is not that he lost, but that the loss was allowed to happen in the first place.
How is it possible that the year ending flagship event for the "legends" tour has spots occupied by several marginal-name players?
I'm not saying Harhuis isn't good, because he is; he was one of the best doubles players ever, and when on his game more than capable of upsetting a 'name' player as well, including Bruguera twice on tour on clay in fact.
But the thing is. We all knew that. "Upsets" happen all the time on the main tour. The average players have ALWAYS been just a hair below the level of the top guys and on their day MORE THAN CAPABLE of beating a top guy (aka Johansson over Safin, Byron Shelton over Stich at Wimbledon, Yzaga over Sampras, heck even lowly MICHAEL RUSSEL had match point against Kuerten at the French during Guga's peak). We all know that, but the thing is the seniors tour ISN'T a "real," equal opportunity tour...or at least it shouldn't be in my opinion. The seniors tour is like a traveling circus with various "name" acts. What good would a hall of fame magician's tour be, if instead of Penn and Teller and David Copperfield performing on closing night we got "Howie the Entertainer" or something? I'm sure "Howie the Entertainer" knows his stuff and can do a more than reasonable job of filling in and doing the tricks, but the one thing he can never replace is the "aura" and name of well...a big name.
The danger in letting in the no-name players that the average Joe off the street would never know is that you get a guy like Jeremy Bates of all people playing real tough, so tough, in fact, that he nearly made the semis. So tough, in fact, that he actually beat the tada finalist, Paul Haarhuis in the round robin. No one's saying these guys can't compete, the problem is that they can compete tooo well, a little tooo close for comfort in fact if I'm the sponsor/financier backing this tour.
The Seniors Tour isn't the main tour and it's not supposed to be, it's half-staged exhibition and half real competition. The competition is supposed to be real, but the gimic selling things is that it's not supposed to be Paul Haarhuis and Anders Jarryd and Jeremey Bates duking it out at the marque year ending championships.
Everyone knows upsets happen on the main tour. They're inevitable in fact. But on the main tour you have a full calendar year to "diffuse" things and at the slams best of five sets to give the top player off to a slow start a chance to recover and make the sponsors and TV guys happy. The seniors tour in it's current "race to the Masters Cup" style configuration is a pale immitation of the main tour's marketing sucess with that format.
The fact is that on the seniors tour, players only play a few tournaments here and there and participation is sporadic at best as are tournaments.
This as a result repeatedly opens the possibility for Bates, Jarryd, Haarhuis, Antonitsch, Uwe-Steeb, Furlan, Bloom, Gaudenzi, Marques, Sanchez, Boetsch, etc., etc. types to slip into these events and shine a little of that spotlight they were never able to achieve on the main tour their way now that they're retired. In fact, I believe that for these guys, the seniors tour is even more alluring as they DIDN'T achieve their childhood dreams of fame and glory the way the "name" players on the seniors tour did. So, for them this is the next best thing, PLUS you KNOW Thomas Muster certainly ain't as fit as he used to be!
It's a golden opportunity, but as a sponsor of the tour I have to think about the marketability and future growth of the tour. If Paul Haarhuis beats Courier in the final tomorrow, that would be DISASTROUS for an already fragile tour. Just think if guys like Jarryd, Bates, and Haarhuis all could have been competing in the semifinals with the only other name semifinalist being Muster...who as we know is uncomfortable indoors especially against serve and volleyers (his arch enemis style to face). That is a SCARY proposition to a sponsor, and the even scarrier thing is that it's not that far-fetched a scenario.
Just to me, it doesn't make smart business sense.
Sure, at the mundane "tour" stops, the rif-raf are inevitable fill-ins for the "names" who can't be bothered to show; but come on for the year-ending marque event? I think that somehow, someway, you've GOT to have NAME ONLY players in the final event, even if it means manipulating things.
Guy Forget to me is a name player, albeit barely. Petr Korda is a name player. Michael Stich is a name player. Boris Becker is a name player. These are all guys who should have been offered wild cards somehow, someway even though they may not have played events or played enough events or done well enough "officially" to qualify.
The bottom-line is that while these name players do 'enjoy' the tour, they obviously don't "enjoy" it seriously enough that they're willing to go globe hopping like 22 year old grass hoppers around the world chasing points year round just to "legitimize" a so-called, year-ending championship.
So, why are we pretending here? This is NOT a TRUE year-ending championship. There's simply not enough of a baseline sampling to validify that over the course of a calendar year.
To me, it should not have mattered if the big names didn't want to commit all-out to "qualify" for the year ending event, they ALL should have been invited to the year ending event anyway, even coaxed, cajoled, or bribed one way or another to ensure that NO MATTER what you ONLY have "name" players in the year-ending "marque" event.
The average guy off the street, heck, ESPN or any other legitimate sports reporting agency, does NOT care how "legitimate" the tour is, or that there is an actual system in place to determine who gets "honors" of competing in the year ending championships. Honestly, no one cares. People don't follow the seniors tour like it means anything; they instead look at each tournament as an EXHIBITION tournament, kind of like the celebrety "benefit" that comes to town every year. Which celebrity should be given the "honor" of competing in the celbrity pro-am? Billy Crystal, Dr. Phil, Pamela Anderson...or Gary the city treasurer? Who do you think is going to sell more tickets? Who do you think is going to make enough money to bring the "benefit" back for one more year?
And along those lines, one has to wonder, what if that could have been Stefan Edberg enticed to play just ONE tournament a year at the GLORIOUS Royal Albert Hall? Just one, Stefan. You've said that you still love playing tennis, just not enough to travel anymore. Come on Stefan, it's JUST ONE TOURNAMENT and EVERYONE'S going to be there. Come on, it'll be a big ol' party. "Name" players who drive Ferraris only reminiscing about how rich they are and how much more popular they are in their respective home countries than you, what could be better?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather see a single, TRULY GREAT AND EXTRAVAGANT seniors event than many mediorcre events scattered throughout the year. So what if all it ammounts to is a glorified exhibition tournament? Heck, the old Grand Slam Cup was a glorified exhibition tournament too, but it sure was a lot of fun! ...plus, the money was pretty good too.
The weird thing is not that he lost, but that the loss was allowed to happen in the first place.
How is it possible that the year ending flagship event for the "legends" tour has spots occupied by several marginal-name players?
I'm not saying Harhuis isn't good, because he is; he was one of the best doubles players ever, and when on his game more than capable of upsetting a 'name' player as well, including Bruguera twice on tour on clay in fact.
But the thing is. We all knew that. "Upsets" happen all the time on the main tour. The average players have ALWAYS been just a hair below the level of the top guys and on their day MORE THAN CAPABLE of beating a top guy (aka Johansson over Safin, Byron Shelton over Stich at Wimbledon, Yzaga over Sampras, heck even lowly MICHAEL RUSSEL had match point against Kuerten at the French during Guga's peak). We all know that, but the thing is the seniors tour ISN'T a "real," equal opportunity tour...or at least it shouldn't be in my opinion. The seniors tour is like a traveling circus with various "name" acts. What good would a hall of fame magician's tour be, if instead of Penn and Teller and David Copperfield performing on closing night we got "Howie the Entertainer" or something? I'm sure "Howie the Entertainer" knows his stuff and can do a more than reasonable job of filling in and doing the tricks, but the one thing he can never replace is the "aura" and name of well...a big name.
The danger in letting in the no-name players that the average Joe off the street would never know is that you get a guy like Jeremy Bates of all people playing real tough, so tough, in fact, that he nearly made the semis. So tough, in fact, that he actually beat the tada finalist, Paul Haarhuis in the round robin. No one's saying these guys can't compete, the problem is that they can compete tooo well, a little tooo close for comfort in fact if I'm the sponsor/financier backing this tour.
The Seniors Tour isn't the main tour and it's not supposed to be, it's half-staged exhibition and half real competition. The competition is supposed to be real, but the gimic selling things is that it's not supposed to be Paul Haarhuis and Anders Jarryd and Jeremey Bates duking it out at the marque year ending championships.
Everyone knows upsets happen on the main tour. They're inevitable in fact. But on the main tour you have a full calendar year to "diffuse" things and at the slams best of five sets to give the top player off to a slow start a chance to recover and make the sponsors and TV guys happy. The seniors tour in it's current "race to the Masters Cup" style configuration is a pale immitation of the main tour's marketing sucess with that format.
The fact is that on the seniors tour, players only play a few tournaments here and there and participation is sporadic at best as are tournaments.
This as a result repeatedly opens the possibility for Bates, Jarryd, Haarhuis, Antonitsch, Uwe-Steeb, Furlan, Bloom, Gaudenzi, Marques, Sanchez, Boetsch, etc., etc. types to slip into these events and shine a little of that spotlight they were never able to achieve on the main tour their way now that they're retired. In fact, I believe that for these guys, the seniors tour is even more alluring as they DIDN'T achieve their childhood dreams of fame and glory the way the "name" players on the seniors tour did. So, for them this is the next best thing, PLUS you KNOW Thomas Muster certainly ain't as fit as he used to be!
It's a golden opportunity, but as a sponsor of the tour I have to think about the marketability and future growth of the tour. If Paul Haarhuis beats Courier in the final tomorrow, that would be DISASTROUS for an already fragile tour. Just think if guys like Jarryd, Bates, and Haarhuis all could have been competing in the semifinals with the only other name semifinalist being Muster...who as we know is uncomfortable indoors especially against serve and volleyers (his arch enemis style to face). That is a SCARY proposition to a sponsor, and the even scarrier thing is that it's not that far-fetched a scenario.
Just to me, it doesn't make smart business sense.
Sure, at the mundane "tour" stops, the rif-raf are inevitable fill-ins for the "names" who can't be bothered to show; but come on for the year-ending marque event? I think that somehow, someway, you've GOT to have NAME ONLY players in the final event, even if it means manipulating things.
Guy Forget to me is a name player, albeit barely. Petr Korda is a name player. Michael Stich is a name player. Boris Becker is a name player. These are all guys who should have been offered wild cards somehow, someway even though they may not have played events or played enough events or done well enough "officially" to qualify.
The bottom-line is that while these name players do 'enjoy' the tour, they obviously don't "enjoy" it seriously enough that they're willing to go globe hopping like 22 year old grass hoppers around the world chasing points year round just to "legitimize" a so-called, year-ending championship.
So, why are we pretending here? This is NOT a TRUE year-ending championship. There's simply not enough of a baseline sampling to validify that over the course of a calendar year.
To me, it should not have mattered if the big names didn't want to commit all-out to "qualify" for the year ending event, they ALL should have been invited to the year ending event anyway, even coaxed, cajoled, or bribed one way or another to ensure that NO MATTER what you ONLY have "name" players in the year-ending "marque" event.
The average guy off the street, heck, ESPN or any other legitimate sports reporting agency, does NOT care how "legitimate" the tour is, or that there is an actual system in place to determine who gets "honors" of competing in the year ending championships. Honestly, no one cares. People don't follow the seniors tour like it means anything; they instead look at each tournament as an EXHIBITION tournament, kind of like the celebrety "benefit" that comes to town every year. Which celebrity should be given the "honor" of competing in the celbrity pro-am? Billy Crystal, Dr. Phil, Pamela Anderson...or Gary the city treasurer? Who do you think is going to sell more tickets? Who do you think is going to make enough money to bring the "benefit" back for one more year?
And along those lines, one has to wonder, what if that could have been Stefan Edberg enticed to play just ONE tournament a year at the GLORIOUS Royal Albert Hall? Just one, Stefan. You've said that you still love playing tennis, just not enough to travel anymore. Come on Stefan, it's JUST ONE TOURNAMENT and EVERYONE'S going to be there. Come on, it'll be a big ol' party. "Name" players who drive Ferraris only reminiscing about how rich they are and how much more popular they are in their respective home countries than you, what could be better?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather see a single, TRULY GREAT AND EXTRAVAGANT seniors event than many mediorcre events scattered throughout the year. So what if all it ammounts to is a glorified exhibition tournament? Heck, the old Grand Slam Cup was a glorified exhibition tournament too, but it sure was a lot of fun! ...plus, the money was pretty good too.
