scottie1 wrote:

---

Andy likes playing in Scotland I dont think he would have come back if played elsewhere. In Scottish papers today he said he wa ssorry for not playing so well. incidently Andy and Colin both wore blue tops they are both proud Scots. I like Flower of Scotland it is a nice song (not so nice for our enemies as it is a battle cry lol)

---

 

I like Flower of Scotland too.  Quite wonderfully inappropriate words though for a team representing GB 

RJA wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Talking about the schedule, just heard on Radio 5 Live that Andy has been saying strike action can't be ruled out if changes aren't made to the schedule 

---

 Quite frankly I am sick of hearing multi millionaires complain about the schedule, the way some of them talk you would think they are forced to play every week of the year with just a couple of weeks off at Christmas. Nadal has been one of the most prominent recent complainers so lets look at his schedule this year.

 

In January he played Doha and the Australian Open (week off in between)

He then had 4 weeks off

After this he did have a lengthy run of playing Davis Cup followed by Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, French Open, Queens, Wimbledon. (That is a run 18 weeks where he played 10 events but still had 4 full weeks off and most of the weeks off in the run up to Indian Wells and Miami)

He then had 5 weeks off

Montreal, Cinci, week off, US Open, Davis Cup

He will now have 2 weeks off

Plans to play Tokyo then Shanghai

He will then most likely have 2 weeks off

Will probably play Valencia and Paris, week off, Masters Series Final, Davis Cup final.

4 weeks off

Now I appreciate that players have to train in between tournaments but I don't believe that the schedule listed above is overly unreasonable, especially not for people who are being rewarded so handsomely.

---

Yes, I know what you mean - if it is correct, that doesn't look like the most taxing schedule, does it.

To be fair to the current big 4 though, they do seem to get to the semis or beyond of virtually every event they play in, which never used to happen to the same extent, and that plus the fact that tennis is much more of a power game these days (not necessarily a good thing, but hard to know who deserves most of the blame for that!) probably makes it harder for the very top players than it used to be. If it is unduly shortening their careers, that's not fair to them and doesn't do the authorities or the fans any good in the long run either.

In addition, players do have a fuller schedule than your example suggests, even if they only play the minimum number of events - even if if they only play the minimum 18 events plus the WTF, if they reach the second week of every slam and play three rounds of DC (min. 2 max. 4 for a player who plays in every one of his country's ties), they will be playing 26 weeks of the year.

Listening to Andy, who (to give him credit) does at least seem to be open about what he is looking to achieve instead of just scattering out (or should I say Rafa-ing out) contradictory criticisms to try and hide the more self-interested parts of the true agenda, the main objection seems to be that the top 30 are forced to play four 500 tournaments (whereas beforehand, only the slams and the Masters were mandatory) thus leaving them only two completely optional tournaments within their minimum of 18+WTF.

There have also been hints that they think the ATP have tried to be a bit too 'clever' with how they schedule 500s, by which I assume they mean the fact that there aren't any before the AO and between RG & Wimbledon, the times when players are most likely to want to play optional tournaments, thus effectively prescribing when they play their two 250 events and making them have to play more than 18 events overall if they have another favourite 250 tournament they want to play in outside those times.

I am inclined to agree that the four 500s rule is an attempt to over-control players' schedules that should be dropped (the fact that twice as many points are available for a title as in the 250 events - also a bit unfair - should be incentive enough to the very top players to pick 500s over 250s) and to agree that there should be 500s in the pre-AO and intra-RG/Wimby periods.

Of course, the fact that so many players want match practice on the relevant surface in weeks 1 and 23 means there is no commercial imperative to upgrade tournaments like Queen's, but I can see why the players find that unfair - it is clear from discussions about the points available at Queen's that most of us find it unfair too!

Muzz hinted at two main reasons why the players object to not having a freer choice of 250s, both of which could be seen to be controversial, which is why I respect him for at least being honest about it.

The first is that it means that in nearly every tournament they play, they have to take on some or all of the top players, so without playing more than 18 events each year, they hardly ever get a chance to play in slightly weaker events so they can try out new things and play with a bit less intensity - I can't see the 250 events being pleased with the implication that players take it a bit easier in 250s, but having had periodisation explained to me by a pro such that it did actually make sense, I can understand why they need to have the chance to play tournaments like that from time to time.

The second main reason seemed to be that the 250s are allowed to (and do) offer guarantees/appearance money, i.e. the top players can be paid handsomely for playing in such an event even if they go out in Round 1. Call me naive, but I couldn't believe this happened when I first found out about it a few years back, so while I can understand the players wanting more chance to earn a bit of 'money for nothing,' I think appearance money is a bad thing and I find it hard to sympathise with players who already making millions in prize money (and staggering amounts in sponsorship) over that issue.

If some of the other top players (I don't get the impression this applies to Andy to a great extent) want to have more free time to play pointless exhibition matches as well, then (as the ATP), I'd be inclined to remind them that pointless exos are what you play when you proper career is over.

I am hoping that comes over as a fairly even-handed rant ... LOL  It comes back to what I said before - the authorities should listen to the players and not be afraid to act where they have a point, even if it involves conflict with other vested interests ... but equally the top players should not necessarily be allowed to get their own way on everything and the ATP/ITF have something of a duty to take into account the interests of the lower-ranked players, other stakeholders and fans as well.

Rich (French) man's Boggo / Poor man's Gasquet

Finally, on an unrelated point, evidence from a quick look at the GEM media that Richard Gasquet gives Boggo quite a run for his money in the competition to be the all time greatest DC - http://bit.ly/oLKTg9 - very harsh to single him out like that under the circumstances of the Spain tie.

Steven does raise some very good points which I broadly agree with. However, while in theory the top players have to play four ATP 500 events, the only punishment if they decline to do so is a couple of zero pointers on their "best 18". So while I agree that either the 4 ATP event rule needs to be modified or some events changed to more convenient times I don't think it is a huge issue.

I can't help feeling that this is primarily a campaign by multi-millionaires for an opportunity to play more "little" tournaments that pay them appearance money and more exhibition matches. The top players are rewarded to an astonishing degree, Djokovic is 24 and has earned $30 million in his career in prize money alone .Now compare this to the lack of money at lower levels of the game, Jamie Baker is 25 and has done okay for himself yet his career prize money stands at $272,247. If had gone into a "normal" job at 16 or even 18 he would have probably earned a similar amount. Go down even lower and the money is a joke, I think it was Fitzy who tweeted the other week to say "when did futures prize money last go up?".

Now I don't begrudge the top players earning huge sums of money but I do expect them to at least acknowledge how well rewarded they are and to not expect the schedule to be drawn up for their convenience.

Oh and one last point. If Nadal is so upset about the amount of tennis that he is "forced" to play, why has he competed in 5 doubles tournaments this year?

So turn both Queens and Halle into 500s? Ok, I know they don't (and won't) meet the general requirements of a 500, but they can always be a special exception, as Monte Carlo is - 1000 points but counting in the 500 section.

Count Zero wrote:

---

i agree queens is popular as it grass, London etc, my point is you suddenly shift it to a 500, it becomes more important as a result, and the top players will be unhappy as there is more pressure to do well. at the moment with it being a 250 it's basically a glorified training event for the top guys, as Andy pretty much says 250 points is bascially nothing. also at any of the other 500's do the top seeds get 1st rd byes as well?

---

 

Hmm. I think some of the top players would "be unhappy" with virtually anything.

Re 500's, from a quick look, Barcelona, Hamburg and Washington have been draws with 48 or 56 where the seeds / top seeds have got 1st round byes.  The rest of them have just been 32 man draws anyway,  i.e  undoubtably generally tournaments with less quantity and quality than Queens and probably Halle too.

Important in that you have to play a certain number of them (and the points are a little better)

I'm not sure what the existing overall possible penslties are for not fulfilling the 500 "commitent".

As has ben said they get zero pointers.  Are they also at risk of financial or even suspension penalties ?