Transition tour

indiana · Tennis legend

Transition tour

Michael D · All-time great

Strongbow wrote:
indiana wrote:
Good stuff, thanks.

Hope it won't go own as a series of articles on how to really muck up the lower / development echelons of your own sport.
It was designed to reduce the number of professional players by 50%. Never going to make everybody happy - big difference between change and progress.

And the difference between a democratic, open and inclusionary system, and an elitist, exclusionary system that has as its goal to concentrate power and resources at the top. It's now clear that the players on the ITF tour don't even have the power any longer to object to this new system. The ATP/ WTA have simply affected a heist and got away with it.

And try telling Emily WS, Oakland that she shouldn't have had the opportunity to travel the world over the last few years, doing what she loves... and yes, finding creative means to make ends meet too. For me, the democratic 'solution' should have been to distribute resources more fairly down the system. Lo and behold, audiences down the system may actually have increased too. The ITF tour has barely been marketed, which is why no-one watches it.

For me this new system is like Trump's border wall, I'm totally against it and would like to see it scrapped. Yes reforms are needed, but not to make the main tours totally exclusionary and elitist. It is the reverse that should happen, that is if we have any belief in the principles of democracy at all, ie that it is a system about offering people choice and opportunity.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

In and of itself, it is not really exclusionary or closed.

Someone who was WTA ranked 900 last year could not get into a 25k. And they still can't.
But they could play a 15k. And they still can.

The new system is the same, in terms of the rankings, just with different names.

And people who do well in 15ks will be able to play 25ks this year by the reserved places. In the same way as last year by their WTA ranking going up.

The main change is the qualification draws (for men, in Challengers, say - this seems really markedly more narrow) and whether it affects how many tournaments are being offered (because if you don't have the feeder events then it ll breaks down).

Michael D · All-time great

An inclusionary system allows natural progress and provides steps along the way for this to happen. The new system erects barriers which make progress difficult. Just the fact that at lower levels players have to pursue two separate rankings is a barrier. You win several 15ks, just to try and gain entrance to 25ks (as a woman) but those wins then count for nothing. As for the men, with a 4 player Q draw, how on earth are people really going to make the step up to challenger level, especially once that becomes the lowest level at which you can accrue ATP points. I'm sorry I see this new system as extremely exclusionary CD, and clearly designed to be so.

JonH · All-time great

Michael D wrote:
An inclusionary system allows natural progress and provides steps along the way for this to happen. The new system erects barriers which make progress difficult. Just the fact that at lower levels players have to pursue two separate rankings is a barrier. You win several 15ks, just to try and gain entrance to 25ks (as a woman) but those wins then count for nothing. As for the men, with a 4 player Q draw, how on earth are people really going to make the step up to challenger level, especially once that becomes the lowest level at which you can accrue ATP points. I'm sorry I see this new system as extremely exclusionary CD, and clearly designed to be so.

I agree with you Michael. I have no issue with trying to have less pro's and make it so that the "pros" that there are (Challenger level I think is the aim of the ATP) left earn slightly more. But the movement up into the pro levels has got to be organic and providing opportunities for the best players to make the move up.

Otherwise it becomes a club, a bit like the PGA Tour in golf, when you are on the gravy train and in the club, you are largely protected unless you have a completely awful season. When the rankings in sports like golf, or Snooker or darts work to protect the club (in those cases by covering two years of play) then in the long run things become static and boring.

Tennis had always been a meritocracy with largely free movement til now and that is eroded at that bridging point between ITF 15/25 and Challenger now. And not to say confusing, not just for the punter but also for players in terms of what strategy to follow in terms of events to play to make progress.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I take your point , Michael. And the men's bit re challenger qualis is my biggest gripe because men don't get atp points for 25ks until the very end so that seems a real cl8sed shop to me.
But the women's doesn't seem hugely different , as long as the number of tournaments stays the same.
You used to have to play 15ks to get points to get into 25ks and you still do. Five guaranteed itf slots is quite a lot. If those are mainly unranked wta players (So let's say below 750 which is their new wta total number aim) then getting five players into a 25k who are outside the top 750 never used to happen and the new system is better and gives more access, not less.
Not saying I'm completely convinced this is how it's going to happen- I do see the wildcard ability of federations now being more and more powerful, which I'm not sure is a good idea (much as I like wildcards).
But just putting it out there.....,

the addict · Tennis legend

Obviously we'll see how it turns out once a few more tournaments have taken place.

I still think it is a problem for the women ranked WTA400-500 in that they will find it hard to get into W25 tournaments for a few months. I'm thinking of the likes of Jodie, Beth, Eden, Lissey, Fran and Freya who are all well down the alt list for Altenkirchen on 18th February before withdrawals. If the 72 players who haven't put it as #1 priority all drop out (including Jodie), that still leaves Beth 18 places short - she may well make it. But it is going to be tough for these players to progress.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

04/02/19

The main mover this week is Julian Cash who is +307 to 1702

There are also a group of players who, either via playing or through drops by other players, have moderate but double-digit ITF ranking rises this week. This includes:

Jonny Gray, Alexis Canter, Sean Hodkin, Adam Jones and Josh Rose

Reasonable jumps in doubles too for Andy Watson and Ryan Penniston, as well as Julian Cash and Liam Broady who are NEW IN.

Madadman · Top national player

Regarding the lack of Qualifying draw at Challenger level. Although this isnt the only thing that I think has been messed up with the change. I do believe this is short sited as at certain points during the year and especially the last few weeks of the season you get a lot of players pull out. In the past this has been fine as the players have just been replaced with someone who came to sign in for qualifying. Now that no one is really going to chance making the trip. The 4 players in Qualifying will get first dibs and then it will just be local tennis players. Not exactly helping those that have grafted all year. Just those who have a competition on their doorstep who can sign in for an alt place. I do feel that there should be 8 or 12 man q draws still for Challengers.

seagull · Hall of fame

Another twist has emerged on this topic.

Apparently ATP were quite willing to offer ATP points for transition/Futures events. The only proviso being was not to sell the data to betting companies.

The ITF decided to sell the data and not have the points.

flamingowings · All-time great

Wow, the ITF are a bunch of.....

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

seagull wrote:
Another twist has emerged on this topic.

Apparently ATP were quite willing to offer ATP points for transition/Futures events. The only proviso being was not to sell the data to betting companies.

The ITF decided to sell the data and not have the points.

And there was I thinking the reasoning behind the change was to cut out match fixing by betting syndicates on ITF matches.

I was going to say that this is rapidly becoming a joke, but in truth, it is way beyond that.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
seagull wrote:
Another twist has emerged on this topic.

Apparently ATP were quite willing to offer ATP points for transition/Futures events. The only proviso being was not to sell the data to betting companies.

The ITF decided to sell the data and not have the points.
And there was I thinking the reasoning behind the change was to cut out match fixing by betting syndicates on ITF matches.
I was going to say that this is rapidly becoming a joke, but in truth, it is way beyond that.

Daivd Miley points outs that 30% of prize money comes from data sales:

"Of course, if the data sales are stopped at the end of 2019, it is likely that the number of events will drop dramatically as the events will not get the data sales payment that offsets over 30% of their prize money costs."

It's a revenue stream, sure, and maybe a needed one in the current business model, but the hypocrisy of being SO anti-betting and yet deliberately keeping it as your main income, at the expense of the structure of the tennis industry itself, leaves you lost for words.....

JonH · All-time great

With this and the Davis cup fiasco, the itf look like fools Add in the atp players and their position over their CEO Chris kermode and also Justin gimelstob and it's a joke.

-- Edited by JonH on Tuesday 5th of February 2019 09:17:53 AM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, and just to be clear, it's the Vice President of the German Tennis Federation who is posting it, quoting Chris Kermode, CEO of the ATP.