ITF launches ITF World Tennis Tour

RedSquirrel · Satellite level

RE: ITF launches ITF World Tennis Tour

Oakland2002 · All-time great

EddietheEagle wrote:
There are seven governing bodies in tennis and therein lies the nub of the problem.

Do you consider the NCAA in that? The quality of college tennis will improve as will the number of international players playing in the US. The standard of competition in the number 1 slot in the best power conferences fluctuates between 15-25k early rounds standard and the national tournaments are 25K. Flights and coaching all sorted at college although no control over the later essentially you are an employee of the programme but if you dont like it transfer is possible. Cam has demonstrated how playing at that level for 3 years can facilitate early success at Challenger level.

I am with Paulisi, all professional sport is tough. The British players that I am aware of who have had the potential to progress since I have been following tennis closely admittedly only 6-7 years have done so or quit (OG) because it didnt suit, I am not saying it has been easy for them but Kyle, Cam and Dan are now in the position where if not already immensely wealthy are on the cusp of access to such opportunities. Wardy has broken the top 100 which I feel is an example of making the absolute most of his talent. Jay is establishing himself at Challenger level and was very close to top 200 when a teenager so an excellent prospect. Some players have just fallen short and some been very unlucky with injury but OG apart. Now Dan is back on it, I cant think of anyone who hasnt made it because of the system given the WC opportunities available to British players.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"The British players that I am aware of who have had the potential to progress since I have been following tennis closely admittedly only 6-7 years have done so or quit (OG) because it didnt suit"

Yes, but I think that's the point many people are making - up till now the old system allowed that to happen (more or less). i.e. Joe Salisbury was able get his doubles ranking up to a decent enough level using the tour that the LTA then could consider him (was forced to consider him) for wildcards, he wins, and therefore gets himself to the very top of the tree.

If the tour doesn't allow that to happen (or makes it very difficult), then it will be impossible to grab the attention of the LTA, unless you're one of 'their' players in the system. And the argument falls down. And this will apply to singles too.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

A bit of desperate extrapolation there. Joe would have very likely failed in all respects had he opted to go the ITF route at 18.

Very sensibly he went to college, was a good but not outstanding college singles player he doesnt make a living playing singles tennis on the ATP tour. Futures did not really facilitate his development between the age of 18 and 22, college tennis did. It is fantastic that he is now making a living playing doubles, perhaps the new system will get better singles players who arent going to make it switch earlier to doubles essentially improving the standard of doubles at the highest level.

I cannot think of any examples of British Singles players who havent made it as singles players who could have. Arguably Marcus, he had some of the skill set but although an outstanding personality in other ways he just didnt really have the single minded focus and drive to put tennis and optimisation of his skill set as his sole focus in life from 16-24, many others around the world do.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, but it's still the same problem, Oakie.

Many people will say:

Of course there's no one that's been let down by the old system. That's because the old system worked well. So your point is a given, because it refers to the old system.

The whole argument now is that the NEW system will not be the same and will not work as well.

EddietheEagle · County player

Oakland2002 wrote:
EddietheEagle wrote:
There are seven governing bodies in tennis and therein lies the nub of the problem.
Do you consider the NCAA in that?

No, I'm not aware of U.S. inter-collegiate tennis as having its own separate governing body. Presumably they ultimately come under USTA jurisdiction. I'm not that familiar with NCAA tennis and its organisation although I read your interesting posts to stay in touch.

The point I was making generally, is that there's this abundance of chiefs in running the sport, all vying for territory, hence the various tensions and inconsistencies that arise over time. Possibly more evident than in other sports where the governing body holds tighter overall control. You see the grand slam tournaments, for example, all imposing their own individual formats for tie-breaks which seems an anomaly to me.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Surely the point is that the new system avoids an enormous number of games between skint players opened to being bribed to survive ie. players realise early that you have to be exceptional to earn a living and not just very good technically but also an elite athlete. It is just tennis a sport played by the relatively affluent getting a little bit real.

Many other sports are much more brutal with vast numbers of more athletically gifted individuals not making it after a life time of trying. Go to any step 5 football match in the country this afternoon (that is 5 tiers beneath the football league) and there will be young men who were the best athletes in their schools over a 3-5 yr period also working full time as builders, plumbers in B and Q etc... who in the balance of probabilities could never have afforded a tennis lesson. Amongst the 3971 players who start these games this afternoon you will find quite a few Evos and Marcuss because it is so competitive at the next tier that somebody else will be desperate for that slot.

You will still get fans paying to watch at this level 50-200. There were over 700 at all the QF of the cup at this level last weekend. I sat next to some parents who were disgruntled that their son was on the bench he had spent his childhood in a football league team academy. The matches are closely regulated, it is the big step up for referees and linesman so they are all closely assessed even so there is no gambling or odds offered as far as I am aware.

When compared to other sports for lots of reasons the ITF had to change things and cull the number of players playing professionally primarily because the sport does not generate enough money to produce a robust infrastructure to support itself at this level. I love playing and watching tennis but it is what it is; a recreational pastime for the over 40s, coaches who make a living coaching them and their children. Only occasionally does an elite athlete choose tennis (because it is so expensive but they are lucky enough to have parents who will support them) but you can get to a very decent standard relative to other more competitive sports as a moderate athlete.

Generally those in the UK gifted enough to progress get supported. If you are close, determined and have invested lots of time and money it must be immensely frustrating that the sport is not bigger unfortunately there arent massive TV audiences (although those for college basketball and football support college tennis) with more opportunity.

wolf · Tennis legend

Oakland2002 wrote:
Surely the point is that the new system avoids an enormous number of games between skint players opened to being bribed to survive ie. players realise early that you have to be exceptional to earn a living and not just very good technically but also an elite athlete. It is just tennis a sport played by the relatively affluent getting a little bit real.

Many other sports are much more brutal with vast numbers of more athletically gifted individuals not making it after a life time of trying. Go to any step 5 football match in the country this afternoon (that is 5 tiers beneath the football league) and there will be young men who were the best athletes in their schools over a 3-5 yr period also working full time as builders, plumbers in B and Q etc... who in the balance of probabilities could never have afforded a tennis lesson. Amongst the 3971 players who start these games this afternoon you will find quite a few Evos and Marcuss because it is so competitive at the next tier that somebody else will be desperate for that slot.

You will still get fans paying to watch at this level 50-200. There were over 700 at all the QF of the cup at this level last weekend. I sat next to some parents who were disgruntled that their son was on the bench he had spent his childhood in a football league team academy. The matches are closely regulated, it is the big step up for referees and linesman so they are all closely assessed even so there is no gambling or odds offered as far as I am aware.

When compared to other sports for lots of reasons the ITF had to change things and cull the number of players playing professionally primarily because the sport does not generate enough money to produce a robust infrastructure to support itself at this level. I love playing and watching tennis but it is what it is; a recreational pastime for the over 40s, coaches who make a living coaching them and their children. Only occasionally does an elite athlete choose tennis (because it is so expensive but they are lucky enough to have parents who will support them) but you can get to a very decent standard relative to other more competitive sports as a moderate athlete.

Generally those in the UK gifted enough to progress get supported. If you are close, determined and have invested lots of time and money it must be immensely frustrating that the sport is not bigger unfortunately there arent massive TV audiences (although those for college basketball and football support college tennis) with more opportunity.

But as said, they have not cut the costs. All they have done is cut money generated from qualifying because now less entrants in qualifying draws, and added an entry fee for main draw. So for the better players expenses have been increased.

christ · Futures qualifying

The sport generates a lot of money, but most of it ends up in the pockets of the privileged few. £2.25m could give 2,250 players £1,000 each or it could pay for one Wimbledon winner.

indiana · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
The sport generates a lot of money, but most of it ends up in the pockets of the privileged few. £2.25m could give 2,250 players £1,000 each or it could pay for one Wimbledon winner.

Yes the idea sometimes expressed that part of the issue is the more elite wanting less players in general so that they can keep most of the money for themselves has always seemed rather absurd to me ( especially if that is some genuine thinking )

They have been taking a ginormous share for ages with the effect of all the lower ITFs on the leading tour players being minescule.

And it would still be relatively very small if instead of driving these players out there was actually more drip down and some element of subsidy. I know that's a dirty word for some but I think many would think that more than worthwhile for tennis as a sport to have a proper basis and career progression, especially for these not with inherent privileges of independent funds or early recognition.

Leaving things all to the marketplace doesn't need to be the way and if that is detrimental to the ongoing health of tennis then the tennis authorities need a pause to regroup and consider where they are heading.

Perhaps stop looking at each level independently, consider what is best for the whole sport, for the future of tennis.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

The infra structure I was referring to was one that prevents match fixing as experienced under the old ITF system with loads of professionals playing all round the world infront of one man and a dog in matches that were relatively poorly supervised.

When push comes to shove all professional sport is down to market forces.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 11:57:37 PM

Strongbow · All-time great

Oakland2002 wrote:
The infra structure I was referring to was one that prevents match fixing as experienced under the old ITF system with loads of professionals playing all round the world infront of one man and a dog in matches that were relatively poorly supervised.

When push comes to shove all professional sport is down to market forces.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 11:57:37 PM

To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesnt talk, it swears

wolf · Tennis legend

Oakland2002 wrote:
The infra structure I was referring to was one that prevents match fixing as experienced under the old ITF system with loads of professionals playing all round the world infront of one man and a dog in matches that were relatively poorly supervised.

When push comes to shove all professional sport is down to market forces.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Saturday 2nd of March 2019 11:57:37 PM

This is still the case. Absolutely none of the changes will prevent match fixing. ITF still have a multi million deal with Sportradar, and $15K's are still have odds on betting sites.

christ · Futures qualifying

indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
The sport generates a lot of money, but most of it ends up in the pockets of the privileged few. £2.25m could give 2,250 players £1,000 each or it could pay for one Wimbledon winner.
Yes the idea sometimes expressed that part of the issue is the more elite wanting less players in general so that they can keep most of the money for themselves has always seemed rather absurd to me ( especially if that is some genuine thinking )
They have been taking a ginormous share for ages with the effect of all the lower ITFs on the leading tour players being minescule.
And it would still be relatively very small if instead of driving these players out there was actually more drip down and some element of subsidy. I know that's a dirty word for some but I think many would think that more than worthwhile for tennis as a sport to have a proper basis and career progression, especially for these not with inherent privileges of independent funds or early recognition.
Leaving things all to the marketplace doesn't need to be the way and if that is detrimental to the ongoing health of tennis then the tennis authorities need a pause to regroup and consider where they are heading.
Perhaps stop looking at each level independently, consider what is best for the whole sport, for the future of tennis.

I'm not sure that the problem lies with the players: it appears to be with the management/ administration: they don't appear to have any thought for the future of the players or the game, their prime - and apparently only aim appears to be making their percentage and their tournaments profitable: big stars = more profits, big prize money is used to attract big stars.

Like in premiership football, this takes no account of tomorrow: fifty years ago youth players graduated en masse into senior teams with the odd "bought-in" player, today the whole team is extravagantly bought-in with only the occasional (truly exceptional) home-grown youth. In this new tennis system, this translates to only the richest can afford to see if they can make the grade - without a reliable "academy" system to identify the truly exceptional, they won't be found.

Strongbow · All-time great

"only the richest can afford to see if they can make the grade" - not true - if your profile happens to fit some rediculous LTA plan - you will get funding. Sad but true.