ITF announces professional tennis restructure

[stringertom]

ok you listed like 10 players in 100 years of baseball history



So, my point stands

Those were just the highlights, the HOFers. Those nine represent 4% of the total players enshrined. Your post stated, "I don't think there's ever been" an instance in baseball's modern era". 4% is a lot more than zero. My point stands.


My post also stated there's a long list of others. Want the list? Go to Wikipedia. It starts with Jim Abbott (good starting pitcher born with only one hand) and goes to Frank Zupo.

I also said the practice has indeed slowed down, probably due much to the influx of Latino players needing a bit of minor league life as a cultural bridge before being subjected to the spotlight of The Show.

Also, because NCAA ball uses metal bats, there's not as much a natural transition to big league pitching for the hitters. Hence, most of the direct jumps since the 80's have been pitchers. It's almost a break for them to pitch to batters using wood. Case in point, the aforementioned Mr. Abbott. Straight into the 1989 Angels starting rotation from U. of Michigan and went 12-12 in his rookie season. Five seasons later he pitched a no-hitter for the Yankees.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Confused. First, how does this change atp/wta? This will only impact the younger players right?

Most tennis players are locked into a certain level ITF circuit unless they get a WC or accumulate enough ranking point to get into the Challenger Circuit! After that, you get to enter the qualifying of ATP main draw 125K and some 250 tournaments.


How will this be achieved? I don't get how a transition tour reduces pro players
from 14,000 to 750.

Easy, you need to get ranking points to move up to the next ITF level tournament. If you get no or little ranking points, you cannot move up! You will be banned or drop off the ITF circuit!

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, this is just a 'locking out' move to make the numbers look better. It will do very little for the advancement of tennis. It could even worsen the situation by homogenising the field and styles of play by locking out variety.

 

[reaper]

Yes, this is just a 'locking out' move to make the numbers look better. It will do very little for the advancement of tennis. It could even worsen the situation by homogenising the field and styles of play by locking out variety.

If someone's playing style (or ability) isn't allowing them to make the top 750 they're simply not capable of being a professional tennis player. I'm not sure they should be "locked out" as this system appears to do but there's no harm in terms of the strength of the field or diversity. Almost nobody even sees the world number 1200's eccentric tactics.

 

[TennisBro]

Yes, this is just a 'locking out' move to make the numbers look better. It will do very little for the advancement of tennis. It could even worsen the situation by homogenising the field and styles of play by locking out variety.

If someone's playing style (or ability) isn't allowing them to make the top 750 they're simply not capable of being a professional tennis player. I'm not sure they should be "locked out" as this system appears to do but there's no harm in terms of the strength of the field or diversity. Almost nobody even sees the world number 1200's eccentric tactics

The reduced assistance to 750 rather than 14,000 young players will most likely present the powers with potential savings (into their pockets) and fewer logistical issues too. Wouldn't there be the motive and opportunity to cut 13,000 throats that with their eccentricities appear to have cancer? What I see here is a materialistic effort to bring down the extent of work and liability the ITF has to cope with. Shrinking the numbers of young athletes in order to get more talented adult competitors in future, the soul has to be an ominous business person more than the sport loving one.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I wonder how much this restructure is linked to the report being presented today in London on corruption in tennis which occurs primarily in the lower rungs of the game. https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/43894806

 

[MarTennis]

There should be a leeway for any players who joins tennis at mid-20's a chance to become a pro from any tennis club. There are too many pro is just an excuse to limit players from joining and preventing them from pursuing their dream. With this newest structure, there'll be never a story like Estrella Burgos using ITF Pro circuit as springboard to his first appearance at a Major. To limit 750 men and 750 female to become a professional tennis player is wrong, imo.

To me, ITF Transition Tour should be a separate entity that is reserved for junior or College graduating to transition tour or age group on young players from 20-22 years old with a 2-year exemption where players can focus on developing their pro game making at their living without having a pressure of having results with a one-year exemption for any players ending their 2-year exemption that finished at top 50 out of 750 Transition players or accumulated enough Transition points to qualify for any Challengers Tour without having to qualifying for Challengers with two events exemption at any 250 event of their choice without having to qualifying for the year and without having to pleading for any wild-card if they are from a nation that doesn't even have any ATP 250 event. After 3 years, they are on their own and they must make a choice whether to continue their career trying their luck at any 3 current structure, Futures, Challengers or ATP World Tour level.

This would allow for players who didn't participate at ITF Transition Tour and paying their own way to any Futures event hoping to acclimating enough points to move up the rank. Some tennis players are just a late bloomer and it can happen in this sport.

No human that starts tennis as a teen will become ATP level, now or tomorrow. Maybe WTA.

 

[sureshs]

If someone's playing style (or ability) isn't allowing them to make the top 750 they're simply not capable of being a professional tennis player. I'm not sure they should be "locked out" as this system appears to do but there's no harm in terms of the strength of the field or diversity. Almost nobody even sees the world number 1200's eccentric tactics.

What about 751? 750 is good but 751 is bad?

 

[MarTennis]

So, if I'm reading this right, they're creating a new lower level local events out of at least some of the lowest Futures events, the level 1 ones.

I'm guessing that this will be the springboard for easier entry into the higher level Futures events?

It seems like it would certainly help those struggling on the bottom rung by reducing travel expenses, etc.
Would also give players an idea of their level without having to chase tournaments around the globe.
I'm unclear on how they'll implement the "localized circuit structure". Will have to wait and see the rules they apply.

On the other hand it also sounds like it won't be open to just anyone but local talent only ("localized"), which would limit ones possibilities.
Some players can struggle on the lower tiers then find their game, win or do well in a few Futures, pick up enough points to get into some Challengers and settle in to being quality journeymen and mainstays on the tour. This would appear to be limiting that possibility.

I'm also unclear on why they are concerned about the people who make no money. If they have the resources shouldn't they be able to chase their dream?

No. Especially if they are horrible and not entertaining.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

No human that starts tennis as a teen will become ATP level, now or tomorrow. Maybe WTA.

I could see a player who started as a teen maybe breaking the top 1000 if they were talented enough.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

If someone's playing style (or ability) isn't allowing them to make the top 750 they're simply not capable of being a professional tennis player. I'm not sure they should be "locked out" as this system appears to do but there's no harm in terms of the strength of the field or diversity. Almost nobody even sees the world number 1200's eccentric tactics.

I'm sorry, but 800th best in the world is ]definitely professional quality. The 800th best baseball player in the world is professional. So is the 800th best basketball player, football player, rugby player, racecar driver, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[sportmac]

No. Especially if they are horrible and not entertaining.

That's subjective. Who's going to define "entertaining"?

 

[sportmac]

No human that starts tennis as a teen will become ATP level, now or tomorrow. Maybe WTA.

Any more declarations you'd like to make?

 

[Otacon]

No human that starts tennis as a teen will become ATP level, now or tomorrow. Maybe WTA.

IIRC, Kafelnikov started tennis when he was a 12 yo boy.

 

[TennisBro]

No human that starts tennis as a teen will become ATP level, now or tomorrow. Maybe WTA.

One reason being is that those young tennis competitors have to work so hard at their early age to be the greatest in their categories that they turn into machines. I guess it is yet to be seen that some of those "machines" collapse from excessive training, diet and demand during competitions but I don't think we're far enough from seeing the future tennis stars ending up in coffins instead of the top ATP or WTA positions.

 

[TennisBro]

IIRC, Kafelnikov started tennis when he was a 12 yo boy.

The majority screams louder than Kalashnikov or Wavrinkov today; what most of the top guys will cry tomorrow is yet to be seen.

 

[mellowyellow]

lol, that's just the words of the author. why are you misquoting? it's: "Immediate question on that, for players who miss time with injuries or take a break[...]"
never heard that Protected rankings will be abolished. and it will also be easier for strong players to climb the rankings on the transition tour.

How would it be easier? Won't the competition be that much stronger as the local dbags are weeded out?

 

[mellowyellow]

One reason being is that those young tennis competitors have to work so hard at their early age to be the greatest in their categories that they turn into machines. I guess it is yet to be seen that some of those "machines" collapse from excessive training, diet and demand during competitions but I don't think we're far enough from seeing the future tennis stars ending up in coffins instead of the top ATP or WTA positions.

ok you listed like 10 players in 100 years of baseball history



So, my point stands

I mostly agree with you, but Devils advocate here I think especially when talking of teams transition isn't just about the player but how they work with the team, and the coaching during a game. So they can get a feel for that players capabilities in certain situations. None of that really translates to tennis.

 

[mellowyellow]

IIRC, Kafelnikov started tennis when he was a 12 yo boy.

Ljubicic was older when he started I think teens I want to say?

 

[reaper]

What about 751? 750 is good but 751 is bad?

These cut offs are always arbitrary...and it should also be fluid, a player might be 751 one week and 749 the next. If you don't cut it somewhere, be it 750 or 751 you end up not being able to cut player ranked 5001 or 50001 either. In terms of how many singles players the tour could realistically support on good money, anything beyond about 250 is pushing it....the slam plus qualifying draw. The rest don't appear to generate much revenue.

 

[reaper]

I'm sorry, but 800th best in the world is ]definitely professional quality. The 800th best baseball player in the world is professional. So is the 800th best basketball player, football player, rugby player, racecar driver, et cetera, et cetera.

Yes but they have a professional role in a team sport even if it's sitting on a bench. Teams have supporters that generate revenue. When world number 700 plays 800 in tennis they might both be very good players, but there's no public identification with either...they have very few fans and hence very few viewers or capacity to generate revenue. It's not like for like.

 

[sureshs]

These cut offs are always arbitrary...and it should also be fluid, a player might be 751 one week and 749 the next. If you don't cut it somewhere, be it 750 or 751 you end up not being able to cut player ranked 5001 or 50001 either. In terms of how many singles players the tour could realistically support on good money, anything beyond about 250 is pushing it....the slam plus qualifying draw. The rest don't appear to generate much revenue.

But the point is that the 751 player will not be around with this new scheme, right?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[TennisBro]

I mostly agree with you, but Devils advocate here I think especially when talking of teams transition isn't just about the player but how they work with the team, and the coaching during a game. So they can get a feel for that players capabilities in certain situations. None of that really translates to tennis.

Sorry I don't get why you've quoted me above. Tennis truly isn't a team sport when it comes to rankings in singles.

 

[reaper]

But the point is that the 751 player will not be around with this new scheme, right?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I don't think that's right. Presumably world number 750 isn't given lifetime tour rights or even a guarantee for the year...there would be some flexibility to move up from below? Let's say the next Roger Federer is the 751st best player at the start of a year...I don't think he languishes for 12 months before getting a shot at tournament play?

 

[mellowyellow]

Sorry I don't get why you've quoted me above. Tennis truly isn't a team sport when it comes to rankings in singles.

Honestly don't know why it's there either I replied to SLD... For some reason it was included?

 

[TennisBro]

Ljubicic was older when he started I think teens I want to say?

Good. So, there're a Kov and a Cic as strong examples that tennis should be played from later ages than it is.

 

[TennisBro]

Honestly don't know why it's there either I replied to SLD... For some reason it was included?

In that case, I apologize for attacking your boat in my very last post here above.

 

[mellowyellow]

In that case, I apologize for attacking your boat in my very last post here above.

no your right, and that's what I was saying, no matter what side your on its hard to cross reference with other sports due to the broad athleticism and singularity the sport requires

 

[West Coast Ace]

I could see a player who started as a teen maybe breaking the top 1000 if they were talented enough.

Is there a crack pipe in the vicinity when you're having this 'vision'? Anything's possibly. Highly improbably.

ITF trying to stay relevant. They're the Olympics and whatever this new, reconstituted Davis Cup will be. They need to 'know their role'.

 

[van_Loederen]

How would it be easier? Won't the competition be that much stronger as the local dbags are weeded out?

it will be easier as the new pro players won't be allowed to play on the Transition tour.
the local dbags won't be weeded out, they will just not be called pros anymore.

I'm sorry, but 800th best in the world is definitely professional quality. The 800th best baseball player in the world is professional. So is the 800th best basketball player, football player, rugby player, racecar driver, et cetera, et cetera.

the term "pro" refers to the ability to earn money. that's not remotely the case for a player ranked 800 in tennis.

But the point is that the 751 player will not be around with this new scheme, right?

the 750 is just a guide value for the size of the pro player pool, but noone will be stripped of their ranking points directly. and there will be an ITF/Transition ranking too, for the lesser players.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Maybe they chose 750 as the cut-off to end any discussion about Serena being able to complete on the men's tour. Haven't a few people estimated that her ranking on the men's tour would be about 700?*

(*notwithstanding that anyone who knows tennis well thinks her level is realistically more like #1500)

 

[Bartelby]

They are making it harder to get into a position to earn ranking points, so I see this as almost entirely bureaucratic shift to make the numbers look more elite and manageable.

The fact is that in the educational system, mechanisms for selecting out students at an early stage are invariably ways of also killing off talent by shunting them into the B stream.

With regard to tennis, it will probably not have such a great effect as this is already the post-junior level.

If someone's playing style (or ability) isn't allowing them to make the top 750 they're simply not capable of being a professional tennis player. I'm not sure they should be "locked out" as this system appears to do but there's no harm in terms of the strength of the field or diversity. Almost nobody even sees the world number 1200's eccentric tactics.

 

[TennisBro]

it will be easier as the new pro players won't be allowed to play on the Transition tour.

which may mean that others will get their chances; and/or which may mean that the new pro players will have to instantly show what they've got at the highest level

the term "pro" refers to the ability to earn money. that's not remotely the case for a player ranked 800 in tennis

and i thought that youth tennis players not only pocketed a bit out of their hard earned winnings but were sponsored by the wealthy brand names too

the 750 is just a guide value for the size of the pro player pool, but noone will be stripped of their ranking points directly. and there will be an ITF/Transition ranking too, for the lesser players.

that's accomodating..so many rankings..seems as if they've learnt from the ATP masters who have Race to London, Race to Milan and a few other "races" out of which one is for THE NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD.

We truly may be the apologists for our rulers who make their decisions based on a lot of factors and who not only want the best tennis but the most out of the competitions. What most is remains to be seen.

 

[van_Loederen]

which may mean that others will get their chances; and/or which may mean that the new pro players will have to instantly show what they've got at the highest level

erm, i was too lazy in my reply. not all 750 ATP ranked players will be banned from the Transition tour, but certainly much more than currently from the Futures tour.
somewhat lower ranked players can play on both tours. not every tournament counting for the same ranking will make things a lot harder for that group, but that's intended and the younger players usually have more room in such a situation.

 

[Simon_the_furry]

Is there a crack pipe in the vicinity when you're having this 'vision'? Anything's possibly. Highly improbably.

ITF trying to stay relevant. They're the Olympics and whatever this new, reconstituted Davis Cup will be. They need to 'know their role'.

Is there a crack pipe in the vicinity when you're having this 'vision'? Anything's possibly. Highly improbably.

ITF trying to stay relevant. They're the Olympics and whatever this new, reconstituted Davis Cup will be. They need to 'know their role'.

Auger Aliassime broke the top 1000 with just 14 years of tennis experience. I could see a guy that maybe started tennis at 14 or so breaking the top 1000 at age 28 or 29 if he was exceptionally talented.

 

[jcgatennismom]

They are making it harder to get into a position to earn ranking points, so I see this as almost entirely bureaucratic shift to make the numbers look more elite and manageable.

The fact is that in the educational system, mechanisms for selecting out students at an early stage are invariably ways of also killing off talent by shunting them into the B stream.

With regard to tennis, it will probably not have such a great effect as this is already the post-junior level.

The ITF is selecting out juniors and shunting out college players to the B stream. It
gives priority to ITF top 100 in the world juniors-I think 5 spots are saved for them in transition Qualis. The qualifying draws of the $15 and $25K Futures have been reduced from 64 to 128 to 24. 300-500 players were applying to each US future last summer. Even with the large draws, some talented players did not even get in 64 draw Qualis.

Here is a true example of two players names withheld. Player A was a blue chip USTA PD junior, played jr grand slams and was ranked in the top 10 in the world for juniors. However, he played 6 ITF Futures in 2016 without qualifying into the main draw, and played 10 in 2017 without earning an ATP point. Those included 3 WCs into main draws where he lost in 1st rd, once or twice he qualified into MD but lost, and at least 5 other tourneys, he did not make it out of qualifier. Finally the player started earning ATP points in 2018 but is still not top 1000. In fact he still loses in some Qualis. Now some ITF world juniors have quick success at Futures but not all so should the iTF give priority for the few spots in qualifying to a world ranked juniors if they have not won a MD 1st rd in a $15k in a year? It took player A 2 years to get his 1st ATP point. Compare that to Player B who was just a 4 star junior in HS but was ITA ranked for dubs in college. He didnt play any ITFs until he graduated. He started winning MD ITF matches in his 3rd ITF and now is close to 850, less than a year after he started playing last summer. He got his 1st ATP point in 2 months. He has a good chance to be in top 750 before year end. However with 24 Quali draws, the ITF juniors will get in before college players so future college grads will have a lot harder time following his path.

The weakness in the plan is that there are no reserved spots in the Transition Tour for college players who dont already have ATP points. The whole world sends players to the US for college-some already have ATP points, but some may come from countries with few Futures or Futures held while they are in college. Not every college team with high ranked players sends them to fall Futures in US. They may have the talent to win Transition Tour matches but may not be able to get in 2019 events. There are probably some guys who will play NCAA singles in May who do not have ATP points. Shouldn't iTF possibly reserve spots for 5 players ranked in ITA top 50 who dont have ATP points?

 

[MarTennis]

That's subjective. Who's going to define "entertaining"?

The market.

 

[sportmac]

The market.

You speak for the market?

 

[NaBUru38]

I have proposed an ATP World Tour Card system for the top 80 players.

 

[MarTennis]

You speak for the market?

I answered your question. I am part of the market. The revenue of Futures and Challengers are part of the market. Streaming revenues are part of the market, as are sponsors. There is NO commercial demand for professional tennis Futures play that generates a self sustaining event. That is about as much conjecture as this topic deserves. Play tennis!

 

[Bartelby]

Isn't the point of entrepreneurial activity the creation of new products that will attract new audiences?

I'm not saying this is easy at the lower level, but it's clear they are just pruning and not inventing.

For eleven months of the year tennis essentially disappears in Australia as the tour moves around the world.

How is tennis going to prosper given the seasonal presence that other sports have?

I answered your question. I am part of the market. The revenue of Futures and Challengers are part of the market. Streaming revenues are part of the market, as are sponsors. There is NO commercial demand for professional tennis Futures play that generates a self sustaining event. That is about as much conjecture as this topic deserves. Play tennis!

 

[sportmac]

I answered your question. I am part of the market. The revenue of Futures and Challengers are part of the market. Streaming revenues are part of the market, as are sponsors. There is NO commercial demand for professional tennis Futures play that generates a self sustaining event. That is about as much conjecture as this topic deserves. Play tennis!

You're claiming that you can make a statement for the ENTIRE market? You're also part of the human race. Do you speak for all of us as well?

Also none of that has to do with what is and what isn't "entertaining".

You're stating a subjective opinion, nothing more. And that's fine, state it as such, as your opinion. Or provide the proof. Your choice (and no, being able to type it out isn't proof).

 

[MarTennis]

You're claiming that you can make a statement for the ENTIRE market? You're also part of the human race. Do you speak for all of us as well?

Also none of that has to do with what is and what isn't "entertaining".

You're stating a subjective opinion, nothing more. And that's fine, state it as such, as your opinion. Or provide the proof. Your choice (and no, being able to type it out isn't proof).

Whatever. The ultimate proof is the change that has been implemented. Make sure you get to a Futures event in 2019.

 

[MarTennis]

IIRC, Kafelnikov started tennis when he was a 12 yo boy.

Your point?

 

[Marius_Hancu]

By Maria Patrascu:
---
Introduction: Petition Against 2019 ITF Transition Tour

In the first week of creating this petition, we already have 750+ votes! This is amazing news, but we need your help to keep it up and spread the word.

Please share this Introduction Video about our petition to help people understand why we are against the 2019 ITF Transition Tour rules.

Thank you!
---

 

[Marius_Hancu]

New, revamped Challenger Tour for 2019
By Stephanie Myles

 

[accidental]

Honestly cant see this being a good thing in the long run. Severely limiting the number of players who are actively trying to become pros and their opportunities will only weaken the overall field of players. Tennis is already suffering from an overall decline in this regard, as more sports become more professional and offer more realistic pathways to being able to make a living. We're already seeing the younger generations coming through being worse and worse compared to previous generations. I won't want to watch a generation of players 15 years from now who will be 2-3 levels worse than the Zverevs and Hyeong Chungs of the world, glorified challenger players artificially inflated to the main tour level.

This is entirely the opposite approach they should be taking imo. They should be upping the level of prize money across the board instead, as in some cases prize money has barely increased since 1995 at the lowest levels.

 

[maximus]

Not good. I wonder why ITF keeps on introducing changes that ruins the game.

 

[NaBUru38]

[QUOTE="Bartelby, post: 12267463, member: 7835" I'm not saying this is easy at the lower level, but it's clear they are just pruning and not inventing.

For eleven months of the year tennis essentially disappears in Australia as the tour moves around the world.

How is tennis going to prosper given the seasonal presence that other sports have?[/QUOTE]
To solve that, I think that the Challenger Tour should be split in continental tours in Europe, Asia-Pacific, North America and Latin America.

The top 8 players from each tour should qualify to the Challenger Tour Finals.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Here's where we are - total confusion and less opportunity:

With new Transition Tour, USTA revamps
By Stephanie Myles
---
The tournament also stated that in 2019, all Futures-level tournaments held in Canada would be cancelled.

The reason behind it, according to the tournament organizers, is the sweeping changes planned at the Futures level for 2019.

A plan to compensate for that, to give the country’s young players and aspiring pros the competitive experience they need, has been months in the making. But it still has not been announced.

---
And it [USTA] also is adding four new “National Closed Championships”, which will come with more wild-card opportunities.

It’s worth noting here that [now] many, many of the players who compete in these [USTA] events are NOT American. And so, they will be left to fend for themselves, with reduced opportunities.

The qualifying draws for many of these lower-level Futures events, especially in Florida, are huge. For those four tournaments this year, two had full 128-player draws. The other two had nearly-full draws, with a few first-round byes.

All that is gone now.

The $15,000 events will have 24-player qualifying draws. Which means that fully 100 players will no longer have a place to compete for weeks on end.



Let’s remember that the basic philosophy behind this is to greatly reduce the number of players with a professional ranking. And thus, it greatly reduces the possibility that a longshot, or a late bloomer, can somehow still make it.

Notably, you wonder how national federations with far fewer resources than the USTA are going to manage this sea change for the prospects in their pipelines.
---