Talk About Tennis 2.0

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm the one thing I haven't heard in this discussion (on Twitter) is why the rule was created in the first place. There has to be a reason, something they were trying to achieve or avoid, and we need to know what it was before condemning it.

Well, according to the ATX Open the whole idea is this: "The WTA forbids 250 tournaments from booking multiple top-10 players in order to "ensure balanced competition across all WTA events held during the same week".

There were, apparently, even rumblings about barring anyone outside of the top-30 from participating in WTA 250 tournaments but I have no idea where the WTA is on that at the moment.

The WTA will try to put a positive spin on this, like "lower-ranked players now get the chance to earn more money because their chance to advance through the draw will be greater" yet at the same time, no WTA 250 is going to survive without marquee players to attract butts on seats and eyes on screens. Then it gets worse, because a 250 can apply to become a 500, but they have to pay serious money for that status while probably already not having a great profit margin to begin with.

Kasatkina nicely summed things up back in 2023:

“I don’t understand how do these tournaments make money if they can’t even invite top famous players. So they say that 250 category tournaments have no money. Of course they don’t have money, they can’t generate it. In ATP these small tournaments, I mean category 250. They can sometimes even have two top ten players and people come and they will watch, there will be broadcasts. There will be life in tournaments.

Of course if no one plays at all, if no one is allowed to play, then it’s clear that nothing like that will happen. But they only make it worse. Everyone knows about the new calendar. I think starting next year, the top 30 cannot play WTA 250, only WTA 500. This complete bull****.”

Seems like they want to create a de facto major and minor league...forcing the higher ranked players to keep entering the larger tournaments to maintain their rankings, ensuring better television deals and what not to those tournaments, while lower ranked players have more opportunities to win the smaller tournaments. Seems there would have to be some sort of revenue sharing to the smaller tournaments for this to work, to keep this "farm tournaments" producing and honing future talent.

I seem to remember something about the WTA addressing complaints from lower ranked players that certain players (especially those that play every week) were coming to the 250 tournaments for free money and ranking points.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm

JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 2:37 am Ugh they are adding a Sunday start to the US Open

And one day to the Survivor Pool. They never think about us.

eventually they are going to add Friday and Saturday, reasoning that they should give fans the whole weekend and wonder why they didn't do it in the first place. There should be something for fans to do that whole weekend, right? I assume they will finish qualifying on Thurs or Fri so they can complete the draw? Why not start some doubles on the weekend and make that free?

That Sunday was the last day fans could enter the grounds for free I think. Now they've taken that away. Last year it was packed.

Emma Raducanu set to do something she has never done before as her next tournament is confirmed
Liam Llewellyn
Thu 30 January 2025 8:00, UK

Emma Raducanu is set to return to something that worked very well at the start of her career.

The Brit is determined to be on court more in 2025 and hired fitness trainer Yutaka Nakamura to help her achieve that.

She enjoyed a solid start to the season by reaching the third round of the Australian Open, but Raducanu suffered a heavy defeat to Iga Swiatek.

A disappointing opening ross at the Singapore Open followed and now Raducanu has made a decision to do something fans had been calling for her to do since last season.

Emma Raducanu will compete in the Abu Dhabi Open qualifiers
Emma Raducanu will soon be back in action as she will compete at the Abu Dhabi Open.

Reports confirm that the 22-year-old will compete in the qualifying rounds to earn a spot in the main draw.

This is the first time the former World number 10 will enter the qualifiers at a tour event for the first time in her career.

Fans will welcome this decision as many questioned why Raducanu did not enter the 2024 French Open qualifiers.

In order for the former British number one to build up her match fitness and climb up the rankings, competing in the Abu Dhabi Open qualifiers can only benefit her.

https://www.thetennisgazette.com/news/e ... confirmed/

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:25 am

skatingfan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:21 am

WTA 250 events are only allowed 1 top 10 player, and Pegula had already signed up for the tournament.

but why? how is that good for the game? is the WTA trying to promote the game or destroy it?

the one thing I haven't heard in this discussion (on Twitter) is why the rule was created in the first place. There has to be a reason, something they were trying to achieve or avoid, and we need to know what it was before condemning it.

The official reason is 'balance', which I interpret as the need to let 250 events attract at least one top 10 player, which then leads to 'protecting' her by having her be the only top 10 player. A bit convoluted but that is how officialdom thinks.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:54 pm I seem to remember something about the WTA addressing complaints from lower ranked players that certain players (especially those that play every week) were coming to the 250 tournaments for free money and ranking points.

Which is so ...greedy? 'unprofessional' it is just normal abd rational

Now this is one 'marxist' system I hope Trump eliminates!

It looks silly now that we have such a balanced field. In the past, the Martina's, Serena's, Steffi's and Chris' of the world would show up at a 250 and collect appearance fees and almost a free 250 points.
The rule is silly now, but I gather it went back to the days in which 250 points meant quite a bit for most players.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:55 am

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:25 am

but why? how is that good for the game? is the WTA trying to promote the game or destroy it?

the one thing I haven't heard in this discussion (on Twitter) is why the rule was created in the first place. There has to be a reason, something they were trying to achieve or avoid, and we need to know what it was before condemning it.

The official reason is 'balance', which I interpret as the need to let 250 events attract at least one top 10 player, which then leads to 'protecting' her by having her be the only top 10 player. A bit convoluted but that is how officialdom thinks.

Yes, I meant the WTA should unpack what they originally meant by "balance." I'm not sure if the primary goal is:
A. to drive top players to bigger events to get everything they can from those TV rights (concentrating their product)
B. to give the lower-ranked players a fighting chance for points
C. to give at least one Top 10 player an incentive to enter a lower event that pays peanuts - because she won't fact top competition, and otherwise wouldn't necessarily be inclined to play any 250s unless she is vulturing for points.
D. some combination thereof

To me this seems like an easy rule to criticize, but the WTA has a lot of pain points, and I don't know what it was trying to accomplish with this rule. Maybe the goal was the lesser of evils.

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 4:52 am

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:55 am

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm

the one thing I haven't heard in this discussion (on Twitter) is why the rule was created in the first place. There has to be a reason, something they were trying to achieve or avoid, and we need to know what it was before condemning it.

The official reason is 'balance', which I interpret as the need to let 250 events attract at least one top 10 player, which then leads to 'protecting' her by having her be the only top 10 player. A bit convoluted but that is how officialdom thinks.

Yes, I meant the WTA should unpack what they originally meant by "balance." I'm not sure if the primary goal is:
A. to drive top players to bigger events to get everything they can from those TV rights (concentrating their product)
B. to give the lower-ranked players a fighting chance for points
C. to give at least one Top 10 player an incentive to enter a lower event that pays peanuts - because she won't fact top competition, and otherwise wouldn't necessarily be inclined to play any 250s unless she is vulturing for points.
D. some combination thereof

To me this seems like an easy rule to criticize, but the WTA has a lot of pain points, and I don't know what it was trying to accomplish with this rule. Maybe the goal was the lesser of evils.

E To force Jelena Jankovic to take a week off

To force Jelena Jankovic to take a week off

Conspiracy by her boyfriend or something?!

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 4:52 am

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 12:55 am

meganfernandez wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:19 pm

the one thing I haven't heard in this discussion (on Twitter) is why the rule was created in the first place. There has to be a reason, something they were trying to achieve or avoid, and we need to know what it was before condemning it.

The official reason is 'balance', which I interpret as the need to let 250 events attract at least one top 10 player, which then leads to 'protecting' her by having her be the only top 10 player. A bit convoluted but that is how officialdom thinks.

Yes, I meant the WTA should unpack what they originally meant by "balance." I'm not sure if the primary goal is:
A. to drive top players to bigger events to get everything they can from those TV rights (concentrating their product)
B. to give the lower-ranked players a fighting chance for points
C. to give at least one Top 10 player an incentive to enter a lower event that pays peanuts - because she won't fact top competition, and otherwise wouldn't necessarily be inclined to play any 250s unless she is vulturing for points.
D. some combination thereof

To me this seems like an easy rule to criticize, but the WTA has a lot of pain points, and I don't know what it was trying to accomplish with this rule. Maybe the goal was the lesser of evils.

I'm guessing it's a combination of A and B. My sense is that top players play 250 events when they're given enough of an appearance fee to make it worth their while, so I think it's more about the money than the points. The fact that they feel they need such a rule indicates that top 10 players aren't concerned about facing each other at these events as long as they get their appearance fees. If they were, they'd just stay off each others' "turf" on their own.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:00 am ...

E To force Jelena Jankovic to take a week off
[/quote]

And Caro Wozniacki. And Dinara Safina. And to avoid some more non-slam winners to reach #1.

But the whole thrust of the ranking system is to force players to play more..so I don't buy thee explanations, not at all..unless the wta has totally gone off its rocker