Protected Points = Skipping Tournaments

[Jason Swerve]

Some of you people called me out for criticizing Osaka's sloppy play when she barely got past the #74 player. The excuse: "But she hadn't played since Melbourne!"

Here's a question: Whose fault is that? Who's choosing to play one tournament a month and being 1-2 in them due to lacking repetition? Is anyone forcing Osaka to slack off? No- but it sure as hell is easy to not worry about playing matches when you aren't going to lose points or money, while you're opting to lounge around in your house instead of playing tennis.

She's got 7 WTA titles.

SEVEN.

She's been playing since 2013.

And people are seriously defending this future ATG for not supporting any of these tournaments that'd love for her to show up and supposedly get her easy trophy in these hard economic times? So because Osaka's barely played 30 matches since the start of last year, these fans act like she's going to just naturally "get better" when she's not putting in a lick of effort? On what planet? Is she going to start playing with cheat codes?

This is a symptom of a larger problem where you have all these players straight up not participating in anything until another Tier 1 shows up that'll pay them "real" money. Hence, the rot in the WTA tour. To an extent, the ATP too, but COVID and these ranking freezes have really exposed how lazy these younger cats are. Basically none of these top players are playing the less prestigious events like they would've done in the '00s. They're not scared of any COVID when the vaccines are out and when they're playing the bare minimum of tournaments to have a schedule. They just can't be bothered to put in any effort when the big venues are coming up with plenty of coin, and so weeks and weeks of tournaments are passing by like ghost towns. I bet my bottom dollar, pros'll be tanking or ignoring everything until Miami, then they'll go all in and show us some rusty, hapless groundstrokes and serves.

Crap like this is why the tours are in a slump. The tours need to implement mandatory minimums with these playing schedules- or start imposing some harsh penalties. I don't get to pick and choose what days I want to clock in. I clock my arse in, or else I'm delinquent. Tennis is a job like any other. More profitable and fashionable, maybe. But it's still a job. The lack of ambition from these men and women is hideous. Hingis played wherever the hell the WTA asked her to play: One of her middle Eastern tourneys in '01, she was threatened to win it, "or else".

But don't worry- she won. So back to the future, thank you for playing Doha, Federer. That's the role model attitude to have for when you can't lose ranking points. This guy just peeled off his casts, and he's hustling and bustling once more. If only more top players looked to this example.....

 

[tonylg]

Meh .. Unless they are scratching to put food on the table, I don't expect any top player to show up to a lot of tournaments for at least another year or more.

 

[beard]

Some of you people called me out for criticizing Osaka's sloppy play when she barely got past the #74 player. The excuse: "But she hadn't played since Melbourne!"

Here's a question: Whose fault is that? Who's choosing to play one tournament a month and being 1-2 in them due to lacking repetition? Is anyone forcing Osaka to slack off? No- but it sure as hell is easy to not worry about playing matches when you aren't going to lose points or money, while you're opting to lounge around in your house instead of playing tennis.

She's got 7 WTA titles.

SEVEN.

She's been playing since 2013.

And people are seriously defending this future ATG for not supporting any of these tournaments that'd love for her to show up and supposedly get her easy trophy in these hard economic times? So because Osaka's barely played 30 matches since the start of last year, these fans act like she's going to just naturally "get better" when she's not putting in a lick of effort? On what planet? Is she going to start playing with cheat codes?

This is a symptom of a larger problem where you have all these players straight up not participating in anything until another Tier 1 shows up that'll pay them "real" money. Hence, the rot in the WTA tour. To an extent, the ATP too, but COVID and these ranking freezes have really exposed how lazy these younger cats are. Basically none of these top players are playing the less prestigious events like they would've done in the '00s. They're not scared of any COVID when the vaccines are out and when they're playing the bare minimum of tournaments to have a schedule. They just can't be bothered to put in any effort when the big venues are coming up with plenty of coin, and so weeks and weeks of tournaments are passing by like ghost towns. I bet my bottom dollar, pros'll be tanking or ignoring everything until Miami, then they'll go all in and show us some rusty, hapless groundstrokes and serves.

Crap like this is why the tours are in a slump. The tours need to implement mandatory minimums with these playing schedules- or start imposing some harsh penalties. I don't get to pick and choose what days I want to clock in. I clock my arse in, or else I'm delinquent. Tennis is a job like any other. More profitable and fashionable, maybe. But it's still a job. The lack of ambition from these men and women is hideous. Hingis played wherever the hell the WTA asked her to play: One of her middle Eastern tourneys in '01, she was threatened to win it, "or else".

But don't worry- she won. So back to the future, thank you for playing Doha, Federer. That's the role model attitude to have for when you can't lose ranking points. This guy just peeled off his casts, and he's hustling and bustling once more. If only more top players looked to this example.....

I kinda agreed, and then I saw last paragraph...

Federer went to Doha for his own benefits. And that's totally ok. But, we must highlight that his decision to play has nothing to do with some support to minor tournaments, he played many ATP 250 and 500 for millions of dollars (that's ok too but let's put things where they belong)...

Federer is known for reducing his schedule for years now and that ok and in accordance with rules... He is not some tennis savior who travel around world and play for everyone satisfaction...

You gave Osaka example, but I think overall youngsters are playing many, many tournaments... Even in this situation most are in Miami...

But generally I agree that protected points became bad for tennis because many players deserve to be better ranked and they know that... They travel from tournament to tournament, risk getting infected, while other players play almost nothing and enjoy good ranking... Injustice hurts...

 

[Jason Swerve]

Meh .. Unless they are scratching to put food on the table, I don't expect any top player to show up to a lot of tournaments for at least another year or more.

This deal didn't start with COVID, but I'm bumping the thread for relevance to Federer's recent interview. I'm always ahead of this crap.

I kinda agreed, and then I saw last paragraph...

Federer went to Doha for his own benefits. And that's totally ok. But, we must highlight that his decision to play has nothing to do with some support to minor tournaments, he played many ATP 250 and 500 for millions of dollars (that's ok too but let's put things where they belong)...

Federer is known for reducing his schedule for years now and that ok and in accordance with rules... He is not some tennis savior who travel around world and play for everyone satisfaction...

You gave Osaka example, but I think overall youngsters are playing many, many tournaments... Even in this situation most are in Miami...

But generally I agree that protected points became bad for tennis because many players deserve to be better ranked and they know that... They travel from tournament to tournament, risk getting infected, while other players play almost nothing and enjoy good ranking... Injustice hurts...

Ha, yes you've got a point there. I might've worded that better. Federer does have an obscene selfishness to him like most the other top players- I just meant 'at least he played the event regardless since they were giving him money'. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but the others can't even be bothered to negotiate. I'm pretty sure these venues can recoup their costs if a whole bunch of Federer-class names show up in their rosters. But since that's not happening, all the majors besides Miami are floundering.

So, thanks again Fed- but then you say some of that stuck-up crap like in that recent post here and prove me right again.

 

[Tshooter]

She’s no longer in it to play second round in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Jason Swerve]

So let me ask you a serious question: If her career ends up being 15-20 HC slams and nothing else, is she a GOAT to you? I'm not saying she needs to binge on 250s and doubles, but I swear based on her age, she reads these online priorities and shapes her career on them.

 

[Robert F]

I get where you are coming from. Especially since tennis popularity seems so dependent on stars and top talent, having the big names play at small events turns them into premier events. When Fed came off injury it was the biggest tennis news of the year despite only a fair showing.

But, I think there has to be some balance. Too many tournaments and the players burn out and are plagued by injuries. Some of the players that are in tournaments almost every week get some deep runs and sometimes some trophies but then eat it at the slams. No one is building star power or tennis legacy winning 250s. If Rublev wins 115 tournaments but never a slam, will he be remembered?

I think what might help is having the rolling ranking points go to 1/2 value after 6 months, so seeds are more representative of their current performance and that way slam champs and semi finalists can't live off one good performance to stay in the top 20. It would give them a lift to the next slam but that's about it.

 

[Jason Swerve]

I get where you are coming from. Especially since tennis popularity seems so dependent on stars and top talent, having the big names play at small events turns them into premier events. When Fed came off injury it was the biggest tennis news of the year despite only a fair showing.

But, I think there has to be some balance. Too many tournaments and the players burn out and are plagued by injuries. Some of the players that are in tournaments almost every week get some deep runs and sometimes some trophies but then eat it at the slams. No one is building star power or tennis legacy winning 250s. If Rublev wins 115 tournaments but never a slam, will he be remembered?

I think what might help is having the rolling ranking points go to 1/2 value after 6 months, so seeds are more representative of their current performance and that way slam champs and semi finalists can't live off one good performance to stay in the top 20. It would give them a lift to the next slam but that's about it.

I know exactly what you're saying. Some players are more susceptible to injuries. The weaker competition doesn't matter- so we have to look at, why did players like Hingis join all these lower tournaments? The answer has to involve the lower WTA field being that much weaker for the WTA Top 10 than the lower ATP field is to the current ATP Top 10.

Except that isn't really the case. No ATP Top 10 is going to lose to some Top XX player unless there's some serious deficiency going on. It shouldn't even be close. In that regard, I say these players who can barely make it use these smaller venues as an opportunity to work on their entire game plan, while under less pressure than in the big events. It's much better than idle practice (and playing Xbox all day). It's how Hingis was able to stay Top 10 competitive with a declining game despite playing 80+ matches every year from '97-'01, while traveling the world for charities. You can't stake your life on finding a modern Top 10 ATP/WTA player in today's weaker eras putting in this much effort.

Most of these players are affected by the COVID situation on top of that. What does someone like Rublev really have to worry about? Himself. His own inhibitions, laziness, and lack of proactiveness. But, unlike most of the women and a bunch of the men, Rublev is actually taking tennis seriously, winning 500s and such. He just needs to dig lower. If he wins 115 tournaments but never a slam, he'll be remembered if he wins those tournaments through excellent play, or if he develops an interesting personality. Ask Kyrgios.

I'm with your rolling points plan if these new players aren't too shortsighted to realize the points won't last. They'll be just that, though. Maybe they'll even complain and drop their playing-level even more. I'd welcome them to step aside as expedient as possible.

 

[LoveTheGreatOne]

Some of you people called me out for criticizing Osaka's sloppy play when she barely got past the #74 player. The excuse: "But she hadn't played since Melbourne!"

Here's a question: Whose fault is that? Who's choosing to play one tournament a month and being 1-2 in them due to lacking repetition? Is anyone forcing Osaka to slack off? No- but it sure as hell is easy to not worry about playing matches when you aren't going to lose points or money, while you're opting to lounge around in your house instead of playing tennis.

She's got 7 WTA titles.

SEVEN.

She's been playing since 2013.

And people are seriously defending this future ATG for not supporting any of these tournaments that'd love for her to show up and supposedly get her easy trophy in these hard economic times? So because Osaka's barely played 30 matches since the start of last year, these fans act like she's going to just naturally "get better" when she's not putting in a lick of effort? On what planet? Is she going to start playing with cheat codes?

This is a symptom of a larger problem where you have all these players straight up not participating in anything until another Tier 1 shows up that'll pay them "real" money. Hence, the rot in the WTA tour. To an extent, the ATP too, but COVID and these ranking freezes have really exposed how lazy these younger cats are. Basically none of these top players are playing the less prestigious events like they would've done in the '00s. They're not scared of any COVID when the vaccines are out and when they're playing the bare minimum of tournaments to have a schedule. They just can't be bothered to put in any effort when the big venues are coming up with plenty of coin, and so weeks and weeks of tournaments are passing by like ghost towns. I bet my bottom dollar, pros'll be tanking or ignoring everything until Miami, then they'll go all in and show us some rusty, hapless groundstrokes and serves.

Crap like this is why the tours are in a slump. The tours need to implement mandatory minimums with these playing schedules- or start imposing some harsh penalties. I don't get to pick and choose what days I want to clock in. I clock my arse in, or else I'm delinquent. Tennis is a job like any other. More profitable and fashionable, maybe. But it's still a job. The lack of ambition from these men and women is hideous. Hingis played wherever the hell the WTA asked her to play: One of her middle Eastern tourneys in '01, she was threatened to win it, "or else".

But don't worry- she won. So back to the future, thank you for playing Doha, Federer. That's the role model attitude to have for when you can't lose ranking points. This guy just peeled off his casts, and he's hustling and bustling once more. If only more top players looked to this example.....

Djokovic mainly due to consistency, redirection ability, CC potency..
Sampras mainly due to on the run killer shot, attack potency, more penetration.

Take or leave whatever you wish.

 

[Fabresque]

I've had enough someone take this guy to the nut house.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Some of you people called me out for criticizing Osaka's sloppy play when she barely got past the #74 player. The excuse: "But she hadn't played since Melbourne!"

Here's a question: Whose fault is that? Who's choosing to play one tournament a month and being 1-2 in them due to lacking repetition? Is anyone forcing Osaka to slack off? No- but it sure as hell is easy to not worry about playing matches when you aren't going to lose points or money, while you're opting to lounge around in your house instead of playing tennis.

She's got 7 WTA titles.

SEVEN.

She's been playing since 2013.

And people are seriously defending this future ATG for not supporting any of these tournaments that'd love for her to show up and supposedly get her easy trophy in these hard economic times? So because Osaka's barely played 30 matches since the start of last year, these fans act like she's going to just naturally "get better" when she's not putting in a lick of effort? On what planet? Is she going to start playing with cheat codes?

This is a symptom of a larger problem where you have all these players straight up not participating in anything until another Tier 1 shows up that'll pay them "real" money. Hence, the rot in the WTA tour. To an extent, the ATP too, but COVID and these ranking freezes have really exposed how lazy these younger cats are. Basically none of these top players are playing the less prestigious events like they would've done in the '00s. They're not scared of any COVID when the vaccines are out and when they're playing the bare minimum of tournaments to have a schedule. They just can't be bothered to put in any effort when the big venues are coming up with plenty of coin, and so weeks and weeks of tournaments are passing by like ghost towns. I bet my bottom dollar, pros'll be tanking or ignoring everything until Miami, then they'll go all in and show us some rusty, hapless groundstrokes and serves.

Crap like this is why the tours are in a slump. The tours need to implement mandatory minimums with these playing schedules- or start imposing some harsh penalties. I don't get to pick and choose what days I want to clock in. I clock my arse in, or else I'm delinquent. Tennis is a job like any other. More profitable and fashionable, maybe. But it's still a job. The lack of ambition from these men and women is hideous. Hingis played wherever the hell the WTA asked her to play: One of her middle Eastern tourneys in '01, she was threatened to win it, "or else".

But don't worry- she won. So back to the future, thank you for playing Doha, Federer. That's the role model attitude to have for when you can't lose ranking points. This guy just peeled off his casts, and he's hustling and bustling once more. If only more top players looked to this example.....

Agreed with a lot of points you made but towards the end your post became for me what it decries - a sense of entitlement, with very little on the line as an invested fan.

Unless you're a tournament owner that's venting here (and which case you have other tools to employ, "win or else.." like you suggested), no one here has any more right to seeing great tennis week in week out than to the easy pickings for top players that's upsetting you.

The good thing about a free market is that even though trends behave like a pendulum and one might catch it on one extreme or the other from time to time, it tends to find an equilibrium over time that matches every stake involved - tournaments, players and fans.

Good points in your post as well as other responses though.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

I get where you are coming from. Especially since tennis popularity seems so dependent on stars and top talent, having the big names play at small events turns them into premier events. When Fed came off injury it was the biggest tennis news of the year despite only a fair showing.

But, I think there has to be some balance. Too many tournaments and the players burn out and are plagued by injuries. Some of the players that are in tournaments almost every week get some deep runs and sometimes some trophies but then eat it at the slams. No one is building star power or tennis legacy winning 250s. If Rublev wins 115 tournaments but never a slam, will he be remembered?

I think what might help is having the rolling ranking points go to 1/2 value after 6 months, so seeds are more representative of their current performance and that way slam champs and semi finalists can't live off one good performance to stay in the top 20. It would give them a lift to the next slam but that's about it.

6 month rankings (with 1/2 from anything earlier) will make YE no.1 and other historical events like WTF meaningless and does not make sense from the way the tour transitions surfaces.

I'd suggest the issue is not so much with rankings but seeding following ranking blindly.

Make seedings based on half ranking points and half points earned on that surface in the last X amount of time- so for grass which occurs only for a short period on the calendar - X might be a year. Whereas for HC that could be last 6 months.

Makes no sense for a clay specialist who garnered a bunch of points during the clay season to be top seed for the HC/grass event right after. So like Wimby does.

The rolling rankings will continue to be calendar year based and thus fair regardless of surface distribution.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Some of you people called me out for criticizing Osaka's sloppy play when she barely got past the #74 player. The excuse: "But she hadn't played since Melbourne!"

Here's a question: Whose fault is that? Who's choosing to play one tournament a month and being 1-2 in them due to lacking repetition? Is anyone forcing Osaka to slack off? No- but it sure as hell is easy to not worry about playing matches when you aren't going to lose points or money, while you're opting to lounge around in your house instead of playing tennis.

She's got 7 WTA titles.

SEVEN.

She's been playing since 2013.

And people are seriously defending this future ATG for not supporting any of these tournaments that'd love for her to show up and supposedly get her easy trophy in these hard economic times? So because Osaka's barely played 30 matches since the start of last year, these fans act like she's going to just naturally "get better" when she's not putting in a lick of effort? On what planet? Is she going to start playing with cheat codes?

This is a symptom of a larger problem where you have all these players straight up not participating in anything until another Tier 1 shows up that'll pay them "real" money. Hence, the rot in the WTA tour. To an extent, the ATP too, but COVID and these ranking freezes have really exposed how lazy these younger cats are. Basically none of these top players are playing the less prestigious events like they would've done in the '00s. They're not scared of any COVID when the vaccines are out and when they're playing the bare minimum of tournaments to have a schedule. They just can't be bothered to put in any effort when the big venues are coming up with plenty of coin, and so weeks and weeks of tournaments are passing by like ghost towns. I bet my bottom dollar, pros'll be tanking or ignoring everything until Miami, then they'll go all in and show us some rusty, hapless groundstrokes and serves.

Crap like this is why the tours are in a slump. The tours need to implement mandatory minimums with these playing schedules- or start imposing some harsh penalties. I don't get to pick and choose what days I want to clock in. I clock my arse in, or else I'm delinquent. Tennis is a job like any other. More profitable and fashionable, maybe. But it's still a job. The lack of ambition from these men and women is hideous. Hingis played wherever the hell the WTA asked her to play: One of her middle Eastern tourneys in '01, she was threatened to win it, "or else".

But don't worry- she won. So back to the future, thank you for playing Doha, Federer. That's the role model attitude to have for when you can't lose ranking points. This guy just peeled off his casts, and he's hustling and bustling once more. If only more top players looked to this example.....

I know exactly what you're saying. Some players are more susceptible to injuries. The weaker competition doesn't matter- so we have to look at, why did players like Hingis join all these lower tournaments? The answer has to involve the lower WTA field being that much weaker for the WTA Top 10 than the lower ATP field is to the current ATP Top 10.

Except that isn't really the case. No ATP Top 10 is going to lose to some Top XX player unless there's some serious deficiency going on. It shouldn't even be close. In that regard, I say these players who can barely make it use these smaller venues as an opportunity to work on their entire game plan, while under less pressure than in the big events. It's much better than idle practice (and playing Xbox all day). It's how Hingis was able to stay Top 10 competitive with a declining game despite playing 80+ matches every year from '97-'01, while traveling the world for charities. You can't stake your life on finding a modern Top 10 ATP/WTA player in today's weaker eras putting in this much effort.

Most of these players are affected by the COVID situation on top of that. What does someone like Rublev really have to worry about? Himself. His own inhibitions, laziness, and lack of proactiveness. But, unlike most of the women and a bunch of the men, Rublev is actually taking tennis seriously, winning 500s and such. He just needs to dig lower. If he wins 115 tournaments but never a slam, he'll be remembered if he wins those tournaments through excellent play, or if he develops an interesting personality. Ask Kyrgios.

I'm with your rolling points plan if these new players aren't too shortsighted to realize the points won't last. They'll be just that, though. Maybe they'll even complain and drop their playing-level even more. I'd welcome them to step aside as expedient as possible.

End of the day, whether you like it or not, if a player shows up at the slams, destroys the competition regardless of their seeding and goes back into hibernation- there's nothing you and I can do about that.

Their participation year round depends on their love for the game, traveling, and financial rewards involved. One top player may choose to maximize it for a few years, another might conserve themselves to avoid burnout. They are independent contractors, not salaried employees that have to 'clock in' to make a paycheck - with all the attendant advantages AND disadvantages involved.

Federer is an exception, not the rule for the sport. His longevity at the top, love for travel ( and money ) and not burning out are unique to him and fans everywhere should be thankful.

Smaller tournaments have to accept their status and the fact that beyond offering financial incentives and hospitality they don't have much of a choice.

The viewing public too can't have it all. You can catch the top players at the biggest events for free or little cost on TV but they can't demand players come play live in their country/town.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Agreed with a lot of points you made but towards the end your post became for me what it decries - a sense of entitlement, with very little on the line as an invested fan.

Unless you're a tournament owner that's venting here (and which case you have other tools to employ, "win or else.." like you suggested), no one here has any more right to seeing great tennis week in week out than to the easy pickings for top players that's upsetting you.

The good thing about a free market is that even though trends behave like a pendulum and one might catch it on one extreme or the other from time to time, it tends to find an equilibrium over time that matches every stake involved - tournaments, players and fans.

Good points in your post as well as other responses though.

By "win or else, are you referring to the Hingis reference I made? I'm pretty sure they meant her bodily harm. I'd never go that far, but you're right that this will naturally sort itself out- one way or another.

To your last point, it's the community effect. If one player does it, it's not a big deal. If two or three players do it, it's the same. But when none of the pros are doing it, and none of the pros are even making it consistently in the bigger draws, you have to wonder why they're approaching this so haughtily. What're they really missing out on by playing when they're not making consistent finals anyway?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

By "win or else, are you referring to the Hingis reference I made? I'm pretty sure they meant her bodily harm. I'd never go that far, but you're right that this will naturally sort itself out- one way or another.

To your last point, it's the community effect. If one player does it, it's not a big deal. If two or three players do it, it's the same. But when none of the pros are doing it, and none of the pros are even making it consistently in the bigger draws, you have to wonder why they're approaching this so haughtily. What're they really missing out on by playing when they're not making consistent finals anyway?

I hear you and I don't necessarily disagree with your critiques, but I'll throw this back to you with regards to the highlighted part above - why does it matter so much to you?

It feels like something very personal from the way your posts are coming across - not sure if that's what you intend or not.

To begin with, even though you admit the issue might be systemic, your targeting of Osaka isn't a good look, assuming you don't intensely dislike her for other reasons.

Secondly, unless you have some insider perspective, one must assume the players and their invested team members have some calculus of economic behavior that results in what we see. Tournament directors I'm sure have a handle on this and have their own balancing act.

 

[Jason Swerve]

I hear you and I don't necessarily disagree with your critiques, but I'll throw this back to you with regards to the highlighted part above - why does it matter so much to you?

It feels like something very personal from the way your posts are coming across - not sure if that's what you intend or not.

To begin with, even though you admit the issue might be systemic, your targeting of Osaka isn't a good look, assuming you don't intensely dislike her for other reasons.

Secondly, unless you have some insider perspective, one must assume the players and their invested team members have some calculus of economic behavior that results in what we see. Tournament directors I'm sure have a handle on this and have their own balancing act.

You'd think I insulted these players' mothers. I said her footwork is bad and she needs to play more tournaments. Please don't turn this into a victimhood party like everyone else here.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

You'd think I insulted these players' mothers. I said her footwork is bad and she needs to play more tournaments. Please don't turn this into a victimhood party like everyone else here.

Got it my friend. Carry on.

Love your passion for the sport. Hope you are able to channel that in some positive way in your real life. Cheers!

 

[Jason Swerve]

Got it my friend. Carry on.

Love your passion for the sport. Hope you are able to channel that in some positive way in your real life. Cheers!

I think it's helped the many players I've coached who've gone far in tournaments. Passion without an understanding of the game counts for little.

It's haughty to only play the biggest events because you think the little ones aren't worth the time. That's the definition of the word. I'm not saying play every major event either. How are these players getting their match experience if they only meet for a flash in the big venues? Simply put: they aren't. That's why we don't have any consistency. It's all easily observed on a grand scale.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

I think it's helped the many players I've coached who've gone far in tournaments. Passion without an understanding of the game counts for little.

It's haughty to only play the biggest events because you think the little ones aren't worth the time. That's the definition of the word. I'm not saying play every major event either. How are these players getting their match experience if they only meet for a flash in the big venues? Simply put: they aren't. That's why we don't have any consistency. It's all easily observed on a grand scale.

Thanks for clarifying. Helps me with my own little game.

I was narrowing my guesses about your motivations down to (a) Unhappy bettor (b) disgruntled former associate or (c) plain old racist

Seems like you might be closer to option (b) without ruling out elements of options a an b.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Your attempt at derailing my thread is pretty uninspired. It's amusing to see the effort you're putting in. The only reason I've been allowing it.

But that's it for us if you've nothing on topic to add.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Your attempt at derailing my thread is pretty uninspired. It's amusing to see the effort you're putting in. The only reason I've been allowing it.

But that's it for us if you've nothing on topic to add.

Wow. Allowing me. You run this board too?

You are quite the irascible fellow.

I'll do what I please, ignore me if you don't want to hear it.

 

[-NN-]

Would certainly like to see Osaka play more tennis. And her split of tournament victories is strange, showing she only really gets herself up for the Majors.

Not sure she's really in love with the game.

That said it's not like she could have done a whole lot more recently than she's done.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Would certainly like to see Osaka play more tennis. And her split of tournament victories is strange, showing she only really gets herself up for the Majors.

Not sure she's really in love with the game.

That said it's not like she could have done a whole lot more recently than she's done.

Something her detractors will always say as a result of this is that she lacked the stamina to win the slams along with the rest of the prizes.


--There were players who could win slams upon slams and everything else they entered. Big-match players.

--There were players who couldn't win as many slams but could win hosts of smaller venues. Small-match players.


The first are looked at, the most fondly. Osaka's the type who only has half of the first. So people will call her half the player of Graf, Navratilova, Court, Serena, etc., and I don't want that for her. I want her to win these smaller venues so the questions stopped being asked, because they are being asked off this forum where the WTA's hardly discussed to start. But the majority here won't get it.

 

[Gizo]

Pre-covid, I was already very worried about the state of smaller tournaments on the tour, both financially and in terms of fields with the two largely going hand in hand, so post COVID those worries are far greater. Also I liked the fact that the WTA tour traditionally had fewer mandatory tournaments than the ATP tour, as fewer mandatory tournaments allowed for greater scheduling flexibility and ultimately a larger number of separate tournaments having big name players. In 2005-2006 for example, it felt like nearly all of the Tier II tour events had pretty good fields. I never liked the attempts from 2009 to add in more mandatory events.

I've strongly disliked the increasing prevalence of the 'only slams matter' attitude in tennis over the years, the obsession with slam counting etc. but sadly I think that the impacts of COVID will see those trends intensify further, and tennis becoming even more if a sport that's only relevant for 8 weeks of the year for many people.

I wonder if we'll get to a stage with fewer tour events (I certainly hope not), but a larger number of tournaments held over 2 weeks with more rest days for the top players. The Madrid tournament this year is currently listed as a two week tournament for the women but a one week tournament for the men. That's kind of ironic given that Spain is one of the countries with the biggest gulf in popularity between men's tennis and women's tennis in the world, with the women's event at Madrid basically treated as a complete after-thought compared to the men's. Even when ASV and Martinez were in their primes during the 90s, WTA events in Madrid and Barcelona were not successful at all and didn't attract a lot of interest from fans. I vaguely remember Seles beating ASV in a final in Barcelona one year with hardly any fans in attendance.