So I think the way things are set up is skewed against our even SEEING new players. For instance, I caught Borna Coric before I had any idea who he was, or even how to pronounce his name, and I have my eye on him.

I catch new players who may be important in the future in the smaller tournaments. So there is a two day wait between seeing players we are interested in, then when they finally play, often they are not even shown. There are often really fine matches that end up not being even shown. Do we see more tennis? Now, we don't, because there is a longer rest in between matches. There are absurd weather conditions (extreme heat at AO and USO), and there is the extreme fatigue involved in the longer matches. It MAY result in the best possible tennis, but there are so many things that work against. Re the lack of interest in the USO final: There is an assumption that the most interest, exciting tennis is always played at slams, and that seeing people slug it out for five sets (potential) always allows us to see the best in players games.

To me the biggest lack in tennis is the emergence of young, talented players. some folks are really getting upset at the prospect of not being able to make as much cash anymore in the future, eh.Ĭlick to expand.I don't understand this either. Where's the notion that in order to be a genuine GS champ, you'll have to win seven matches, no matter who's turning up at the other side of the net? Whoah. Hopefully the ATP will realize this in time and turn back these disgusting top dog-protecting measures in the future. Not investing in young and/or upcoming players will eventually mean the death of a sport as no top dog has eternal life. So, how to make sure that the Cash Cow can milked as much and as long as possible? Make it more difficult for the 'chumps' or 'expendable characters' to upset them, and that's exactly what happened.Īnd while it's been working for quite a long time now, I'm happy to see the cracks already beginning to show with guys like Wawrinka, Cilic and Nishikori managing to reach finals at SLAMS in stead of ATP tournaments. because of some top dog practicing somewhere on an outside court. I've been at several tournaments where I noticed near to empty stadiums at matches of, for instance, Dimitrov, Raonic, Dolgopolov, et. Unfortunately, we live in a society where it's all about the $$$$$$$$$.ĪTP/tournament directors have made gazillions of it by marketing the top dogs to an extent where I think it's not far off to claim there's a kind of 'Bieberization' of the sport going on - with tons of so-called 'fans' not so much being interested in the sport, but much more, in gazing at 'stars'. PS: the link is to a NY Times article on the pathetic request for a seeding change to protect players from 'unfair draws' Did the ranking points change create an unequal divide (after the shameful seeding change) where the top players, already protected by the seeding system, further widen the gap between themselves and the chasing pack aided by this uneven points gain? The result: Monte Carlo remains a Masters 1000 tournament to this day, and Hamburg had to pay the ATP's legal expenses and accept its fate as a 500 tournament supplanted by Madrid. The 2009 changes included fines for players not participating in obligatory Masters Series tournaments and the controversial demotion of the Monte Carlo and Hamburg Masters tournaments, which was challenged in court. To simplify the explanation, the points earned in the later stages of the biggest tournaments were all doubled, while those earned in the early stages increased but not by that much. The ranking points awarded were also changed to what they are now. The tournament structure that we have in place now (1000's 500's 250's) was also put in place then. In 2009 the ATP changed its name to the ATP World Tour.

Carla suarez navarro career statistics