Just did a little research (I daresay I could've found all this some very easy way, but please don't tell me as I'll feel very stupid!). Here are some of the major tennis nations ranked in order of total 'spend' (prize money) on tournaments:
USA: 10 x 10k, 13 x 25k, 13 x 50k, 3 x 75k, 1 x 100k = $1,400k (40 tournaments)
France: 9 x 10k, 6 x 25k, 6 x 50k, 5 x 100k = $1,040k total (26 tournaments)
Italy: 18 x 10k, 10 x 25k, 2 x 50k, 3 x 100k = $830k total (33 tournaments)
Spain: 25 x 10k, 8 x 25k, 2 x 50, 1 x 75 = $625k total (36 tournaments)
Japan: 8 x 10k, 8 x 25k, 3 x 50k, 1 x 75k, 1 x 100k = $605k total (21 tournaments)
GB: 10 x 10k, 3 x 25k, 2 x 50k, 1 x 75k = $350k total (16 tournaments)
Australia: 12 x 25k = $300k total (12 tournaments)
Germany: 7 x 10k, 4 x 25k, 2 x 50k = $270k total (13 tournaments)
Russia: 2 x 10k, 4 x 25k, 2 x 50k = $220k total (8 tournaments)
Obviously the position of Russia suggests that hosting lots of tournaments is not vital to player success (though the fact that many Russians train in the US undermines that a bit). We seem to have a relatively low spend on tournaments compared to other nations - though I would consider Germany our closest parallel among that group, and we outspend them.
It's interesting the different models countries seem to be pursuing - France favouring big-money tournaments for instance, Australia doing only 25ks. Personally I like the look of the Spanish model - providing more than enough 10ks for all their up and coming players to get a full 16-tournament season without leaving home soil at high cost (and without them out-competing each other too), with little emphasis on the higher-points tournaments which better-off players can more easily pursue overseas. This seems by far the most 'democratic', grassroots-focused method of nurturing talent. Personally, I'd far rather lose Shrewsbury and have 7 more 10ks dotted over the country! [edit: obviously that's very crude as prize money doesn't accurately reflect tournament cost to run, and Shrewsbury probably costs very little more than a 10k, but still...]
Hope this is of some interest - haven't included WTA here as I don't like the WTA website and it'd all get rather confusing, but obviously that impacts on this picture too - I guess it's a matter of weighing up the increased revenue/interest/inspiration gained from an Eastbourne or Birmingham versus the increased opportunities for Brits that'd be gained from more Sunderlands and Cumberlands. A very tricky one!
-- Edited by jb288 on Sunday 27th of December 2009 09:09:41 PM
Apologies for replying to myself, but after a little rummaging on the LTA site, it appears that there are a few changes planned this year, such that the breakdown for women will be as follows:
8 x 10k - as this year until the grass season, where there will be no 10ks for women, and Cumberland and Jersey will disappear to be replaced by Chiswick & Gosling. 5 x 25k - Sutton, Jersey & Glasgow remain, with additional hardcourt tournaments in July in Woking & Wrexham. 1 x 50k - Nottingham. 2 x 75k - Shrewsbury & Barnstaple
Overall the number of tournaments remains the same, but the prize money shifts upwards, and we have a new batch of reasonably big money post-Wimbledon tournaments (though on hard - the complete removal of the low-money grass tournaments which our girls have done so well on is a real blow, but perhaps an attempt to make them better equipped for the vast majority of the tour).
Given what I said above, I can't be that much in favour of this (and I'm gutted that Woking & Wrexham will fall just before the school holidays start!), but we'll have to see how it goes. 8 points for a 25k win could be career-changing for some of our girls, and perhaps more will have that opportunity now. Surely, however, it would make sense to make Notts, Shrews & Barnstaple all 50ks (since few of our players are high enough to benefit from 75k at present), and use the money to maintain and increase the number of 10ks?
Thats really interesting. I think 25ks are great as they allow the younger players to make the transition from 10ks upwards towards the much bigger points. GB could do with a couple of bigger events (maybe a 100k after Wimb?) for our budding top 100 flock to take advantage of and to also help the likes of Stoop and Cavaday to climb.
On the basis of value for money i.e. comparing tournament value to total number of ranking points available the 25s are by far the best value and the 10s offer the least value.
Tournament Value Total Number of Ranking Points Number of Ranking Points per 10,000 of Tournament Value
Obviously on this basis you should follow the Australian model if your sole target is to maximise ranking points and thereby a players ranking.
However other considerations should be taken into account. You need a balance of tournaments so that all playing levels are catered for.
Clearly are best players don't need to play many 10s. Take Laura and Heather for example who have only played 2 10 events. So ideally you want a balance of tournaments to cover all playing levels with more 25s and less 10s.
Sure, but that kind of analysis doesn't really consider the impacts on those whose ranking will be too low for 25ks - ie the vast majority of young players. I'd like to see lots of 25ks, even more 10ks, and few higher than that - just like the Spanish. Then we'd have both 'leg-ups' for those without amazing talent (some people need a confidence boost!), and the opportunity to push on. Sure, 10ks can't build a full career, but they can certainly kickstart one (see Naomi Broady's early season) and are obviously vital to upping the ranking to the point where 25ks are achievable entry-wise.
You clearly need a few 10s in your calendar to kickstart your ranking up to the 500 level and then you can move up to the 25s. I just think to be consistent the WTA should alter the points given for 25s and 10s to make them more comparable.
