Prize money increases for the ITF Circuit

indiana · Tennis legend

Prize money increases for the ITF Circuit

wolf · Tennis legend

Bugger. I actually thought that was going to be a rare case of a LTA decision we could all agree on.

Good point, CD. But in a way it does sort of make sense as everyone has the same number of years out of juniors. You could argue if you did it on birthday a player born in December would have an extra 11/12 months once out of juniors than a player born in January.

indiana · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
Bugger. I actually thought that was going to be a rare case of a LTA decision we could all agree on.

Good point, CD. But in a way it does sort of make sense as everyone has the same number of years out of juniors. You could argue if you did it on birthday a player born in December would have an extra 11/12 months once out of juniors than a player born in January.

No, sorry that doesn't work for me as an argument.

A player can play futures as early as they want, a player born in January is not trapped in juniors until the end of the year of their 18th birthday. In general I would imagine players born earlier within the same year move into seniors earlier as seems logical.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

wolf wrote:
Bugger. I actually thought that was going to be a rare case of a LTA decision we could all agree on.

Good point, CD. But in a way it does sort of make sense as everyone has the same number of years out of juniors. You could argue if you did it on birthday a player born in December would have an extra 11/12 months once out of juniors than a player born in January.

Nah, sorry but that doesn't make sense to me, wolf. Coming out of juniors isn't really relevant because they are all allowed to play senior events (and are eligible for funding) at any time i.e. before they're 18.

So if the cut-off is the year that you turn 20, then a player born beginning of Jan. has the potential of 20 years and 51 weeks of funding. A player born end Dec. can only possibly get 20 years and 1 week.

However, we can all agree that this bonus scheme is a lot better than last years smile

add: somehow missed reading Indy's comment, but yes !

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 19th of December 2016 09:59:42 AM

Oakland2002 · All-time great

It's academic really those who are going to make it should be transitioning in their final year of juniors on the men's side i.e. When they are 17 and competing at challenger level where there is no age restriction by 20, there has to be a clear line in the sand. It would be fairer to have 2 cut offs i.e. At the end of December and June. So those January born get until the end of June with bonuses playing futures while 20. I do feel for those who have been adversely affected over the last year but moving goalposts is a fact of life in every profession.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

If it were academic, because no one cares about the bonus top-up for futures, because they should be playing challengers by the time they're 20 so the futures cut-off doesn't matter, then it's true that there's no point in fine-tuning the details.

But on the basis that the LTA have decided that to have the futures part of the scheme, and to have an age 20 cut-off, and that most people think it is a good idea, then there is every reason for it to be as fair and as effective as possible.

A clear line in the sand would be the players' birthdays.

This is what's done in Europe for all the 'real age' juniors tournaments.

And they've been very effective. And administratively not an issue (once people got used to it, which wasn't long). And they relate to events with far more entrants than a few British players in their 20th year so far more complex in terms of data entries etc.

Of course, life's life, and moving goalposts are part of that. But it's no reason to just accept it or endorse it when there's a very simple and fairer alternative, that's been tested in far more demanding situations.

Again, though, I'm not trying to be overly critical - it's a small point and won't affect a lot of players. But all the same....

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

I was unclear as to the points situation for Women's ITF matches at the new levels (e.g. $60K, $80K), the website still shows the old structure, and the points associated to that.
So, I contacted the ITF, and they very promptly and helpfully got back to me
Here is what they wrote in this regard:
The points allocation remains the same, $10k points in 2016 will be for $15k, $50k will be for $60k, $75k will be for $80k. We are hoping to release the 2017 ITF Pro Circuits rule book shortly.

Which is what I had sought of presumed, but good to hear it from source, so I thought I'd share the information.

indiana · Tennis legend

AliBlahBlah wrote:
I was unclear as to the points situation for Women's ITF matches at the new levels (e.g. $60K, $80K), the website still shows the old structure, and the points associated to that.
So, I contacted the ITF, and they very promptly and helpfully got back to me
Here is what they wrote in this regard:
The points allocation remains the same, $10k points in 2016 will be for $15k, $50k will be for $60k, $75k will be for $80k. We are hoping to release the 2017 ITF Pro Circuits rule book shortly.
Which is what I had sought of presumed, but good to hear it from source, so I thought I'd share the information.

Thanks AliBB, I was wondering in another thread what was going to be the women's 15K structure - the old 15K ( max points 25 ), last year's 10K scale ( max points 12 ) or something else.

So apparently it's last year's 10K. That means the points vs prize money for 15Ks ( max points 12 ) is very much out of ratio with the existing 25Ks ( max points 50 ).

The new men's 15Ks and 25Ks work reasonably because they never had 25Ks and their 15Ks ( max points 18 ) is the old 10K scale and their 25Ks ( max points 27 ) is the old 15K scale.

But with the women already having and keeping 25Ks their 15Ks and 25Ks are now out of kilter unless they are going to reduce the 25K points ?? ( which would actually seem logical, in line with the rest, but I have not heard such a suggestion ). Be interesting to see it all in full.

PS: In fact surely we should be able to see it now, as indeed the players etc. Very good that the ITF got back to you promply, but has the 2017 ITF Pro Circuits rule book not come out yet ?

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 3rd of January 2017 03:56:13 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Tara has progressed to the Hong Kong 25K SF. I am not sure though how many points that is worth this year.

With the new 15Ks taking the old 10K's points, fairly logically the 25Ks, effectively now downgraded in the grand scheme of things, should take the old 15K points or something much more akin to that than last year's 25K scale.

Anyone know for sure ?

wimdledont · Challenger level

I think it's updated here...

www.itftennis.com/procircuit/players/ranking-points.aspx

The one very significant change is that 15k+H tournaments give double the points of simple 15ks. So they will draw a lot of higher level entrants. So there is a real incentive for organisers to offer hospitality, which should help a lot of players financially.

I still think that the quadrupling of points between the lowest tier and 25ks is grotesquely unfair on players starting out on tour, especially those who do not have a supportive association to give them wildcards up to higher levels. The men's distribution of points is much more sensible, in my view.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks wimdledont.

So the 25K does remain the same and yes, the points ratio of the 25Ks against 15Ks is too much. With the old 10K and other higher events having prize money increases the 25K had been relatively devalued so most logically less points ( its points looking relatively high aginst both the new 15Ks and new 60Ks ) alhough agree an alternative would have been to give higher points to the new 15Ks, the old 10Ks already being relatively fairly measly.

The table with the 15K+H ( which is the old 15K scale ) does maybe make the progression look smoother, but isolate the straight 15K vs 25K ( and indeed 15K vs 15K+H ) and it seems very odd. Too much work to come up with a new scale or two ?

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Looks like big changes ahead....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-4122638/Futures-tour-axed-match-fixing-fallout-independent-inquiry-integrity-tennis.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

At first glance, I can't say I am too impressed with the ideas. Basically, to stop match fixing at futures level, scrap tennis completely. OK. That will work. But what about the players who are trying to make it and transition to Challengers. All those honest players out there will suffer for the sins of a few.

Well, lets introduce another level called the "Development Tour". Tell me please, what is the difference. People will simply bet on that and players will continue to throw matches as before. Or will these matches be played in secret behind closed doors and the results never published.

If they want to stop in match betting, then the easy way is to scrap live scoring on the internet. We fans would be frustrated, as we would have to wait for results (or increase our band of intrepid on location reporters) but at least it would stop those betting sites allowing people to bet on "next point" and "next game".