ATP Claycourter - Best example: Carlos Berlocq. Analysis. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ATP Claycourter - Best example: Carlos Berlocq. Analysis.

viruzzz
11-14-2011, 11:17 PM
Let's analyse Berlocq's season.

We all know Berlocq is easily one of the top 40 claycourt players.
The ATP combo "World-challenger tour" allows a pro-player to play in one only surface during the whole season.
ATM, berlocq has reached his best ranking (61), and this year he won 4 ATP Challenger tour titles.

Some people would probably say that he's stealing those tournaments to the "young guns" or other less ranked players, and that he should play bigger tournaments during the season.
But, as you can see, when he tried to play in Indoor Hardcourt this year, he lost the only 2 matches he played (both vs Kohlschreiber in St Petersburg and Moscow).
His "non-clay" stats in 2011 were: 6-10. 5 of those 10 defeats were in R1. One of them in Qualies.

But, when we talk about clay, he has a record of 34-19 with 4 challenger titles.

Some claycourt players, like him, most of the spaniards and south americans would easily play in clay the whole season without playing a single match in HC.

So...
What do you think about it?
Tennis is one of the only sports that's multi-surface.
ATM, there's so many talk about slowering the surfaces, and making the whole tour as an "Slow-HC".

In South America, 90% of the tennis courts are claycourts.
Here in Buenos Aires, there are so many tennis clubs. One of them is the "Vilas Club", and only 2 of the 14 courts are Hardcourt.
It's really, really difficult to find a grasscourt. The most common thing is clay.
Clay, clay, clay. Tennis in Argentina is played on clay.

I would prefer multiple tennis courts, so, my country would get players like Del Potro or Nalbandian who can easily play in any surface and have titles in so many of them.
But, the most common thing is the "South American claycourter" and for those people, playing in clay the whole season it's pretty good.

What do you think about it?
Is fair that a player can play in only one surface the whole year?
You can do the same in hardcourt, there's always HC tournaments in the ATP Challenger tour.
But considering a consistent top 50 player only plays a 25% of the season in claycourt, it's kinda... different to play the 100% of the season in that surface and still get a ranking of 61 and rising.

TennisOnWood
11-14-2011, 11:34 PM
I just love watching him on clay Challegers.. hope he can break record for most titles veru soon

Topspindoctor
11-14-2011, 11:55 PM
Yeah, it's fair. Especially when top players do the same thing to clay. Roddick always fakes injuries and loses in early rounds on clay for example and he's supposed to be top player.

Ad Wim
11-15-2011, 10:41 AM
Yeah, it's fair. Especially when top players do the same thing to clay. Roddick always fakes injuries and loses in early rounds on clay for example and he's supposed to be top player.

Exactly.

Thing is though, that the incentive for playing ATP-tour tournaments should be higher.
Winning a big challenger will earn you 125 points, that's half of winning a 250. That's too much imo.

That being said, Berlocq also reached TMS Rome SF, and had other good results on ATP Tour. So it's not only challengers.

fsoica
11-15-2011, 10:50 AM
That being said, Berlocq also reached TMS Rome SF.

When was that? Do you speak abt doubles or what?

n8
11-15-2011, 11:30 AM
When was that? Do you speak abt doubles or what?

Berlocq's default points breakdown on the ATP website is doubles. It's silly as he is ranked higher in singles than doubles.

Re topic, Andujar is an even better example of an ATP claycourter. 770 of his 920 points (83.4%) come from clay. 3-16 off clay this season, 22-16 on clay (including qualifying).

VIPer7
11-15-2011, 12:16 PM
Winning a big challenger will earn you 125 points, that's half of winning a 250. That's too much imo.

But if you compare the prize money then the difference is a lot bigger: 18k $ for winning the biggest challenger (< 10k $ for the smaller ones) vs. at least 66k $ for winning an ATP 250 (Belgrad), and up to 177k $ in Doha :rolleyes:. So that's at least 3.5 times as much.

So I think most challenger players only play these tournaments to get enough ranking points to qualify for ATP events. Because that's where the big money is, and where you also get more spectators and TV coverage (thus more money from sponsors).

As a comparison: Last week Berlocq gained 10.8k $ for winning the Buenos Aires Challenger. At the US Open he gained 31k $ for beating Pere Riba in round 1 (another good example of those clay courters) and then providing cannon fodder for Novak in round 2 (he probably gained some extra money from his sponsor because the match was on center court).

I guess if you ask Charly "what do you prefer: Spending a whole week at a small clay tournament to win 10k $ or playing two Grand Slam hard court matches and getting double bagled by the world no. 1 to win 30k+ $?" he would probably chose option 2.

bjurra
11-15-2011, 12:36 PM
But if you compare the prize money then the difference is a lot bigger: 18k $ for winning the biggest challenger (< 10k $ for the smaller ones) vs. at least 66k $ for winning an ATP 250 (Belgrad), and up to 177k $ in Doha :rolleyes:. So that's at least 3.5 times as much.

We can conclude the relationship between ATP points and prize money and Challenger points and prize money is strange (I would say wrong).

Current system means players with funding from federations can buy themselves a better ranking by sacrificing prize money.

Filo V.
11-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Well, Bellucci, Almagro, Chela and others are average at best off clay, and have been consistently top 30, and in Almagro's case, top 10. Andujar is awful off clay and is top 50, Fognini, Starace, all examples. Berlocq's problem is he isn't quite good enough to survive playing only ATP events, so really the challengers make up a large portion of his points per season. I don't really think winning the big challengers is too much money, because the fields are like mini-ATP events anyway. Players have to earn their way to the title. Also, there are no BYEs in challengers. So it's a good thing the players are rewarded with a lot of points, which gives them the opportunity to play ATP events in the future.

viruzzz
11-15-2011, 02:38 PM
But if you compare the prize money then the difference is a lot bigger: 18k $ for winning the biggest challenger (< 10k $ for the smaller ones) vs. at least 66k $ for winning an ATP 250 (Belgrad), and up to 177k $ in Doha :rolleyes:. So that's at least 3.5 times as much.

So I think most challenger players only play these tournaments to get enough ranking points to qualify for ATP events. Because that's where the big money is, and where you also get more spectators and TV coverage (thus more money from sponsors).

As a comparison: Last week Berlocq gained 10.8k $ for winning the Buenos Aires Challenger. At the US Open he gained 31k $ for beating Pere Riba in round 1 (another good example of those clay courters) and then providing cannon fodder for Novak in round 2 (he probably gained some extra money from his sponsor because the match was on center court).

I guess if you ask Charly "what do you prefer: Spending a whole week at a small clay tournament to win 10k $ or playing two Grand Slam hard court matches and getting double bagled by the world no. 1 to win 30k+ $?" he would probably chose option 2.

I think this is the point we're all searching for.
:)