Madrid Masters cancels doubles

[callitout]

One poster suggested that doubles provides a valuable function by filling in time between singles matches at tournaments. I have only been to Grandslams many times (USO and RG), and Cincy several times. I know that practice court time is limited and even top players have trouble getting as much time as they want. So I imagine that if there were less doubles we'd be watching more singles players practicing. To my mind, thats an okay trade. I'd much rather watch Agassi practice at USO than any doubles.

BTW I saw Fed play doubles at Cincy and watched him practice. The practice was much more interesting to watch.

Its really a matter of taste, but if doubles isnt generating the revenue why should the players have the right to such prize money.

 

[Jack the Hack]

World number two Rafael Nadal has welcomed the changes, and other players believe they add excitement.

Nadal may welcome the changes, but he has a funny way of showing it... he hasn't played doubles in a tournament since early August. I guess these new rules have really motivated him and the other top singles players to take to the doubles court! :roll:

The organisers seem to think that doubles=loss, where the expenses of the feeding and caring of doubles specialist is obviously not balanced by the revenues generated by the doubles.

Where is the proof that doubles is causing the tournament organizers to lose money? Also, how is the revenue from singles verses doubles split?

When you buy a ticket for Madrid, the price starts at 6 Euros and goes up to 65 Euros for the final. This price is for both singles and doubles... so it's not like they are selling separately. Are tournament organizers saying that they would sell MORE tickets if there wasn't a doubles draw?

The same thing goes for the other forms of revenue in a tournament (like television and sponsor money). The revenue is still coming in no matter whether they have a doubles draw or not. However, if the tournament organizers can eliminate doubles, I doubt the extra money would go to the singles players... I bet it would go to the tournament.

However, the whole goal of these changes wasn't to eliminate doubles, but get singles players to play it. But since they aren't likely to sell extra tickets for this or get more sponsor revenue even if that happened, how is this about money anyway?

They know they are not bringing in the business, even though they have made concessions in the past but further cocessions with the new rule change is better than not being able to play at all.

Aside from the silly scoring, the real beef of the doubles specialist IS that they won't be able to play at all with the new rules. The new rules say that in 2008, all doubles players must have qualified for the singles tournament also... which means a lot of doubles specialists will not get to play! (Therefore, they have a legitimate reason not to make a concession here... and it looks like they need to sue to maintain their livelihood.)

 

[VamosRafa]

Nadal may welcome the changes, but he has a funny way of showing it... he hasn't played doubles in a tournament since early August. I guess these new rules have really motivated him and the other top singles players to take to the doubles court! :roll:

I may be wrong about this (although I doubt it), but Rafa's praise of these changes came back when they were made, when he was still playing a lot of doubles.

I have read virtually every interview given by Rafa, in virtually every language, in recent weeks, and I haven't seen him say anything new about doubles. He's focusing on singles.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I may be wrong about this (although I doubt it), but Rafa's praise of these changes came back when they were made, when he was still playing a lot of doubles.

I have read virtually every interview given by Rafa, in virtually every language, in recent weeks, and I haven't seen him say anything new about doubles. He's focusing on singles.

Susan, you are correct that Nadal's praise of the doubles changes came out when they were first announced. In fact, I think that he was one of the only top singles players to make any comment about them at all...

However, as you pointed out "he's focusing on singles", which is what all of the top 20 guys are doing. The point is that these changes are not having the effect that the tournament promoters and ATP supposedly wanted, which was to induce the top name singles players to play in the doubles draw.

In my opinion, if the ATP really wanted to coerce the singles players into playing doubles, they need to do it by either offering bonus money, tying the ranking points to doubles, or making players contractually obligated to play. Pro golfers are obligated to play in pro-ams before their tournaments or they will be disqualified. If the ATP is serious about doubles, maybe they need to do something like that. (Instead, the way they are doing it right now, it almost seems like they are trying to eliminate doubles...)

 

[Deuce]

These idiot administrators fail to realize that, because of this ongoing doubles debacle, professional tennis is losing more of its integrity and credibility every day.

Morons.

Doubles-only circuit, please.

 

[Rob_C]

Nadal may welcome the changes, but he has a funny way of showing it... he hasn't played doubles in a tournament since early August. I guess these new rules have really motivated him and the other top singles players to take to the doubles court! :roll:



Where is the proof that doubles is causing the tournament organizers to lose money? Also, how is the revenue from singles verses doubles split?

When you buy a ticket for Madrid, the price starts at 6 Euros and goes up to 65 Euros for the final. This price is for both singles and doubles... so it's not like they are selling separately. Are tournament organizers saying that they would sell MORE tickets if there wasn't a doubles draw?

The same thing goes for the other forms of revenue in a tournament (like television and sponsor money). The revenue is still coming in no matter whether they have a doubles draw or not. However, if the tournament organizers can eliminate doubles, I doubt the extra money would go to the singles players... I bet it would go to the tournament.

However, the whole goal of these changes wasn't to eliminate doubles, but get singles players to play it. But since they aren't likely to sell extra tickets for this or get more sponsor revenue even if that happened, how is this about money anyway?



Aside from the silly scoring, the real beef of the doubles specialist IS that they won't be able to play at all with the new rules. The new rules say that in 2008, all doubles players must have qualified for the singles tournament also... which means a lot of doubles specialists will not get to play! (Therefore, they have a legitimate reason not to make a concession here... and it looks like they need to sue to maintain their livelihood.)

I would say the proof doubles doesnt draw any crowds, therefore doesnt generate any revenue is the empty stands for doubles matches. Except for a few team(s), Bryan Bros come to mind, not many people care that much about doubles. I think I read in this months TennisWeek that the French Open doubles final was played before empty stands.

 

[Jack the Hack]

I would say the proof doubles doesnt draw any crowds, therefore doesnt generate any revenue is the empty stands for doubles matches. Except for a few team(s), Bryan Bros come to mind, not many people care that much about doubles. I think I read in this months TennisWeek that the French Open doubles final was played before empty stands.

OK... where did they lose the revenue for these empty stands? The tickets are already sold on a package basis, which includes singles and doubles. Same goes for television, radio, advertisement, and sponsor money. It's not like tournament promoters had to give money back because nobody wanted to attend the doubles matches.

Also, "empty stands" is a relative term in this case. If the stadium holds 10,000 people, but only 1,000 show up for the doubles, it will look pretty empty. However, 1,000 people were still interested in watching.

I agree that more people would probably watch doubles if there were some big names involved, but the current changes to induce singles players to participate are not working!!!

As I mentioned before, if the ATP really wanted to coerce the singles players into playing doubles, they need to do it by either offering bonus money, tying the ranking points to doubles, or making players contractually obligated to play (like golfers are obligated to play in pro-ams before their tournaments). Messing with the scoring and trying to get the doubles specialist to qualify in singles is the wrong approach, and is not motivating players like Federer, Roddick, and even Nadal to play so far.

 

[Noelle]

As I mentioned before, if the ATP really wanted to coerce the singles players into playing doubles, they need to do it by either offering bonus money, tying the ranking points to doubles, or making players contractually obligated to play

I agree with you. The ATP should have though long-term and about preserving as many jobs as possible, instead of taking the shortcut and cutting doubles out of the whole equation. There should have been other options explored before this.

 

[Rob_C]

OK... where did they lose the revenue for these empty stands? The tickets are already sold on a package basis, which includes singles and doubles. Same goes for television, radio, advertisement, and sponsor money. It's not like tournament promoters had to give money back because nobody wanted to attend the doubles matches.

Also, "empty stands" is a relative term in this case. If the stadium holds 10,000 people, but only 1,000 show up for the doubles, it will look pretty empty. However, 1,000 people were still interested in watching.

I agree that more people would probably watch doubles if there were some big names involved, but the current changes to induce singles players to participate are not working!!!

As I mentioned before, if the ATP really wanted to coerce the singles players into playing doubles, they need to do it by either offering bonus money, tying the ranking points to doubles, or making players contractually obligated to play (like golfers are obligated to play in pro-ams before their tournaments). Messing with the scoring and trying to get the doubles specialist to qualify in singles is the wrong approach, and is not motivating players like Federer, Roddick, and even Nadal to play so far.

They "lose" revenue by having to pay out the prize money, but also for the free housing they have to provide the doubles players until the day after they are out of the tournament, I believe.

 

[Jack the Hack]

They "lose" revenue by having to pay out the prize money, but also for the free housing they have to provide the doubles players until the day after they are out of the tournament, I believe.

The purpose of the new rules (supposedly) is not to eliminate the doubles draw, so therefore, they would still have to pay the prize money. As for the free housing of players, I believe only the top singles players get that kind of concession.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

I've attended the Merces Benz Cup in LA the last few years. The night session usually includes one singles match & one doubles match. I'm not a big fan of doubles, but I want my money's worth. When Agassi drills a no-name in 60 minutes, I'd still like to see more tennis(even though singles is why I'm there)

I doubt most of you bashing doubles even attend tournaments(Aykhan?)

Of course the slams are different, there's so much going on you never have to watch doubles.
But for most run-of-the-mill events, doubles serves an important purpose.
I would be pissed at paying good money for just one match.

 

[Rob_C]

The purpose of the new rules (supposedly) is not to eliminate the doubles draw, so therefore, they would still have to pay the prize money. As for the free housing of players, I believe only the top singles players get that kind of concession.

Every main draw player, singles & doubles, gets a free hotel room till at least the day after they are out of the tournament, it could be longer, I forget.

 

[Rpp]

Every main draw player, singles & doubles, gets a free hotel room till at least the day after they are out of the tournament, it could be longer, I forget.

In doubles it is like that, in singles minimum 5 nights even if eliminated on first round.

 

[callitout]

I've attended the Merces Benz Cup in LA the last few years. The night session usually includes one singles match & one doubles match. I'm not a big fan of doubles, but I want my money's worth. When Agassi drills a no-name in 60 minutes, I'd still like to see more tennis(even though singles is why I'm there)

I doubt most of you bashing doubles even attend tournaments(Aykhan?)

Of course the slams are different, there's so much going on you never have to watch doubles.
But for most run-of-the-mill events, doubles serves an important purpose.
I would be pissed at paying good money for just one match.

Good point. I havent been to a small event like that, and I completely agree. Id rather see doubles than go home after an hour. And yes the slams are different, there are tons of matches and lots of people practicing all the time.

 

[mctennis]

I'm upset at the new ATP rule about doubles. Most club players only play doubles and want to see quality doubles being played. Doubles usually takes about half the time to play as singles in pro play. What is the problem with getting more tennis to watch at the pro events? Most upper single pro players don't play doubles nor will they with this rule change. They make more money at singles and don't want to risk being tired or get injured playing doubles. That's why there are single specialists and doubles specialists. I see a lot of pro singles players going over to playing doubles as they get more miles on their body. It prolongs their playing career and the fans get to see more of them also. Remember, to them that is their JOB. Thus, to keep the moeny coming in they have to play. No play no money no eat.

 

[Dilettante]

I've attended the Merces Benz Cup in LA the last few years. The night session usually includes one singles match & one doubles match. I'm not a big fan of doubles, but I want my money's worth. When Agassi drills a no-name in 60 minutes, I'd still like to see more tennis(even though singles is why I'm there)

That's OK, and of course you hold the decission of buying a ticket or not buying a ticket.

But maybe some tournaments would like to hold the decission of offering you doubles, or not offering you doubles, within the price of your ticket.

If you don't find profitable to buy a ticket that doesn't offer doubles, you don't buy it: absolutely right. But, what if a tournament's organization don't find profitable to offer you doubles?

It's the supply and demand law.

 

[Rpp]

That's OK, and of course you hold the decission of buying a ticket or not buying a ticket.

But maybe some tournaments would like to hold the decission of offering you doubles, or not offering you doubles, within the price of your ticket.

If you don't find profitable to buy a ticket that doesn't offer doubles, you don't buy it: absolutely right. But, what if a tournament's organization don't find profitable to offer you doubles?

It's the supply and demand law.

Don't expect that the total price money is less without doubles. That money will be circulated amongst singles players for sure. ATP are not that stupid that they let the total prize money to come down. So the only real saving for the organizers are the hotel nights they are paying for the doubles players. I would estimate that cost 5.000-10.000USD per tournament. If tournaments are dependant on that saving then the sport is in a big trouble.

 

[Replayer]

Need to create a "World Ranking" that integrates both a player's singles & doubles performance. Then, they need to have seperate events for singles & doubles so that the current singles stars *can* play in the doubles events. Finally, there needs to be some very serious cash prizes committed to the doubles tournies.

The above would draw the Federers, Agassi's, etc to team up and pursue doubles championships as well as singles championships.

Sure seems like a better approach than totally fubar'ing the doubles game! Duh!

 

[Replayer]

<oops...duplicate post...sorry>

 

[the man to beat]

bad move

2 is a perfect combo

double

TROUBLE..... **