Kind of surprised that this didn't get around earlier, but according to this press release, the BBC has extended their contract to air the ATP World Tour Finals until 2013, specifically mentioning that it will continue to be from the O2 in London: "The BBC and the ATP have agreed a two-year extension to their Barclays ATP World Tour Finals broadcast agreement, the ATP announced on Wednesday. The new deal will see the BBC broadcast the next two editions of the event at The O2 in London in November 2012 and 2013." http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/07/Features/London-Finals-BBC-Extends-TV-Deal.aspx
The O2 has a 5 year deal starting in 2009 - so it was always going to be in London in 2013 - this is about the broadcasting deal rather than the event per se.
I'm doing the London triple this year. Wimbledon - Done Olympics - Happening in a few weeks. WTF - Will be next.
No, and they shouldn't be. ALthough Clay is a true surface, the indoor hardcourts have already lost a lot of prestige. If they move YEC to clay that would be full circle on surface homogenization.
I dont know actually, good question sir! I think it's the only chance for your idol nadal to win it, isnt it? actually, let's make all the GS on clay, so your guy could win 3 straight YGS before he retires actually, lets ban all the other surfaces other than clay
But the YEC should be about one who is clearly the best player, not one who can play well only on an indoor hard-court with perfect conditions. That seems far too specific. I think a better idea would to play a full round-robin, on all three surfaces (clay, grass, hard-court). That would stop people who have done nothing all year from winning what is supposed to be a prestigious title (Federer in 2011).
How do you know that? It is best to keep an open mind about things. I think it would be a nice change-up from the regular boring, indoor hard-court, perfect-conditions tournament. No variety.
It is not the world championships. It's more the Slam of the indoor hardcourts. Roger clearly is the best on indoor hard.
It is not a slam. Mark Petchey, at the 2010 World Tour Finals, said that Federer was the best of the best for the 5th time in his career. That is true, but only on indoor hard-courts. So is the goal of this tournament only to see who is the best on indoor hard-court? If so, then I don't see the point of making this worth 1500 points. It should either just be a masters 1000, or seen as only a surface-specific achievement.
Monte Carlo is not called the "ATP World Tour Finals", and its winner is not called "the best of the best" usually.
Well, to win a WTF you need to beat at least 4 of the top 8 players. That is why the winner is said to be the best of the best, although the rankings say otherwise. Then they shouldn't play RG or SW19, because they show who is the best of only clay and grass, and should be considered a surface-specific achievement. (I don't believe any of this. I'm just using NSK's logic.)
Slams follow a 2-week timespan and consist of solely best-of-5 matches. So how is it that a player who was able to win 3 straight slams, on 3 different surfaces, all in a calendar year, compared to a player who won a week-long tournament on indoor hard-court, is not considered the best of the best?
Why should it only be seen as a 1000 event? Then it would be no different from Bercy? Should we make Roland Garros and Wimbledon 1000 events because they decide who's the best grass and clay court player? Or, since wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament, should we make it a changing venue, with sometimes the final being on an extremely fast hardcourt, and sometimes an extremely slow claycourt?
It's the reporters job to hype the event by calling the winner the best of the best. Tennis fans understand that the event is played on a specific surfaces which reward a kind of tennis more than other, and at a specific period of the year, which also reward one kind of tennis on another. Just like any tennis tournament. It's stay an important venue because of the top 8 players playing against each over. In 2010, Fed defeated successively (in that order) the N°7, 5, 4, 3, and 1 in the final. He was number 2 himself.
I am saying that the ATP World Tour Finals should not be called the 'World Tour Finals' as it is not representative of who the best player on the tour is at the time. I would be happy to keep it at 1500 points, so long as it was not seen as a tournament which is won by the best player of the year. The slams are 2-week long events, with a best-of-5 format throughout.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought 2012 was the last year the event was going to be held in London. Thanks batz!
