The tour final should give more points [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The tour final should give more points

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:31 AM
After all the world tour final is the best players of the season playing to show who is the best of that season. You have to do very well in all the seasons major tournaments to even get into the WTF. This year it currently takes 6000 points to qualify. To reach that many points over a season you have to be a very good player.

In the world tour finals you only play multiple matches against the top players on hardcourt (which is the the most common surface in the ATP and therefore should be the most prestigious) and indoors where there is no wind/rain or other factors to benefit less skilled players or cause interruptions, delays that can throw off players serve or offensive game.

In short the tour final should be worth MORE than a slam. Currently a win only gives 1500p. This is basically for historical reasons. The WTF has never carried as much prestige because it took a while before they found out that tennis should also have a "playoff" like many other big sports.

WTF is basically the tennis playoffs. The best players facing each other to show who was the seasons best player. In many sports the regular season is even seen as pointless if you don't qualify for the playoffs and do well there. I tend to view sports the same. A win in the faceoff between the very best is always very valuable! If it's not as valuable as it should be compared to regular season there is a problem.

So should WTF be worth 3000 points with SF being worth 1500? Should they change it and have the 32 or 16 best players of the season fight for victory instead. Should the final be best of 5? Or even best of 3 but played in a best of 3 matches? I think its a disgrace that the "playoff victory" isn't even worth as much as a slam when there are 4 of those in a season! There is only 1 WTF in the season.

TennisOnWood
06-06-2011, 11:33 AM
To show who is the best player of the season??? Bloody Davydenko, Djokovic or Federer were best players in seasons when they won MC?

Don't think so

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 11:36 AM
Lol.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:38 AM
To show who is the best player of the season??? Bloody Davydenko, Djokovic or Federer were best players in seasons when they won MC?

Don't think so

Yeah but you can't look at historical results in the WTF for many reasons. It doesn't have the prestige, points, prize money, best of 5 sets? Think! If they changed it would be a different tournament. Now guys view it as a master 1000 with benefits

TennisOnWood
06-06-2011, 11:40 AM
Yeah but you can't look at historical results in the WTF for many reasons. It doesn't have the prestige, points, prize money, best of 5 sets? Think! If they changed it would be a different tournament. Now guys view it as a master 1000 with benefits

And do you think it will be changed?

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:43 AM
And do you think it will be changed?

No. But it makes a helluva lot more sense than giving the slams more points?

In all honesty the tour final should be made to be the years most prestigious and valuable tournament. Not saying that it has been that. I'm saying it SHOULD BE

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:48 AM
After all the world tour final is the best players of the season playing to show who is the best of that season. You have to do very well in all the seasons major tournaments to even get into the WTF. This year it currently takes 6000 points to qualify. To reach that many points over a season you have to be a very good player.

In the world tour finals you only play multiple matches against the top players on hardcourt (which is the the most common surface in the ATP and therefore should be the most prestigious) and indoors where there is no wind/rain or other factors to benefit less skilled players or cause interruptions, delays that can throw off players serve or offensive game.

In short the tour final should be worth MORE than a slam. Currently a win only gives 1500p. This is basically for historical reasons. The WTF has never carried as much prestige because it took a while before they found out that tennis should also have a "playoff" like many other big sports.

WTF is basically the tennis playoffs. The best players facing each other to show who was the seasons best player. In many sports the regular season is even seen as pointless if you don't qualify for the playoffs and do well there. I tend to view sports the same. A win in the faceoff between the very best is always very valuable! If it's not as valuable as it should be compared to regular season there is a problem.

So should WTF be worth 3000 points with SF being worth 1500? Should they change it and have the 32 or 16 best players of the season fight for victory instead. Should the final be best of 5? Or even best of 3 but played in a best of 3 matches? I think its a disgrace that the "playoff victory" isn't even worth as much as a slam when there are 4 of those in a season! There is only 1 WTF in the season.

I'm not sure it should be worth more, but it should be equivalent.

Everyone will jump on you about matches not being contested over 5 sets. Watch and see.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure it should be worth more, but it should be equivalent.

Everyone will jump on you about matches not being contested over 5 sets. Watch and see.

What kind of issue is that? I already think today the SF and F should be best of 5 sets. If they made it worth as much or more than a slam I don't think players would mind. It is mandatory after all so if they don't like they can come and lose :)

+ I have always hated that there is no indoor slam. WTF needs to be more prestigious.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:55 AM
What kind of issue is that? I already think today the SF and F should be best of 5 sets. If they made it worth as much or more than a slam I don't think players would mind. It is mandatory after all so if they don't like they can come and lose :)

I have no problem with 5 set matches. In fact, I prefer them. I just wish people wouldn't pretend that 3 set matches and 5 set matches are almost different sports. It is the same sport, with the potential for 2 extra sets. It really is that simple.

Luinir
06-06-2011, 11:57 AM
I'm not sure that you would say the same if this tournament would be on clay.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:59 AM
the majority of the tour is on hardcourt? If anything clay got too many tournaments. Look at poor grass. Clay should give up at least one master 1000 to grass. fact

TennisOnWood
06-06-2011, 12:03 PM
the majority of the tour is on hardcourt? If anything clay got too many tournaments. Look at poor grass. Clay should give up at least one master 1000 to grass. fact

There's 4 or 5 Grass tournaments since the start of ATP Tour in 1990. (probably before too) and we can't do anything about that

At the end of last season we have same number of Hard and Clay tournaments in Open era.. just check the ratio for this year and who will be in big advantage in 5 or 10 years

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 12:09 PM
well if the tour final is a big no-no for claytards it can just be rotated. Change surface every now and then. But it would always be played indoors. Dunno if indoor clay is that exciting for organizers but its not like a slam where you need a gazillion courts for all the qualifying and other madness going on. Can just put a surface with whatever they decide for that years final

Luinir
06-06-2011, 12:16 PM
Indoor-outdoor makes quite big difference.

Matt01
06-06-2011, 01:14 PM
the majority of the tour is on hardcourt? If anything clay got too many tournaments. Look at poor grass. Clay should give up at least one master 1000 to grass. fact


Your first post in this thread was already ridiculous but this takes the cake.

ExcaliburII
06-06-2011, 01:16 PM
No tournament will ever have the prestige Slams have. 1 slam > more than anything else you can achieve

Luinir
06-06-2011, 01:18 PM
No tournament will ever have the prestige Slams have. 1 slam > more than anything else you can achieve

This.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 01:24 PM
The question wasn't about how it is today or why it is like it is today. Need to learn how to read the OP even if the post is more than one line and doesn't contain the words Nadal/Federer/Djokovic in that line.

The thread is about:
Should WTF be worth more points? Should they change it and have the 32 or 16 best players of the season fight for victory instead. Should the final be best of 5? Or even best of 3 but played in a best of 3 matches? I think its a disgrace that the "playoff victory" isn't even worth as much as a slam when there are 4 of those in a season! There is only 1 WTF in the season.

romismak
06-06-2011, 02:04 PM
I would like to have more prestigious WTF. First of all i think they should decide one place - one city for long time not to change places every 3-4-5 years or so. It is also pretty late, when most guys want to have rest after long season - the truth is tennis is probably longest from any major sports - i mean tennis season is very long comparing to other big sports. So if it wasnīt so late - November and it would be in one city long time it could have been more prestigious. Why it must be last event of season?, why donīt make race for last 52 weeks i donīt know since that month to that month and it can be played in middle of season, when players are fresh and would like to play such event. Than of course more points for winner would be better. I agree that slams are the most prestigious tournaments and it should stay that way, but look on AO, many years ago AO was considered as the 4th Slam- 4th - latest, 4th less important than the others and now - better schedule, and it is equal slam to the others. I hope WTF will one day - maybe in 10-15 years be very important tournament. Players need to looking forward to play this event - i think making it best of 5 RR 2x groups by 4 players and it should be longer - more days to play, time to rest, at leasst 10 days, if IW and Miami could be longer than 7 days, why not WTF? The winner of WTF should be considered as tennis champion of the world - slams are for history and for players to enjoy them, but WTF should be considered as world tennis championship and players should take it more seriously and really wanting to win that event.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 02:05 PM
No tournament will ever have the prestige Slams have. 1 slam > more than anything else you can achieve

This is the kind of idiotic mindset I'm referring to. There are tonnes of achievements that are greater than winning a slam. Rafa's CC run last year was much harder than winning any single major. Djokovic's IW and Miami double by itself is a greater achievement than winning a major.

Exactly what do you think a grand slam is? Listening to some of you talk, one would think that you had to beat the entire top ten at the same time.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 02:14 PM
I would like to have more prestigious WTF. First of all i think they should decide one place - one city for long time not to change places every 3-4-5 years or so. It is also pretty late, when most guys want to have rest after long season - the truth is tennis is probably longest from any major sports - i mean tennis season is very long comparing to other big sports. So if it wasnīt so late - November and it would be in one city long time it could have been more prestigious. Why it must be last event of season?, why donīt make race for last 52 weeks i donīt know since that month to that month and it can be played in middle of season, when players are fresh and would like to play such event. Than of course more points for winner would be better. I agree that slams are the most prestigious tournaments and it should stay that way, but look on AO, many years ago AO was considered as the 4th Slam- 4th - latest, 4th less important than the others and now - better schedule, and it is equal slam to the others. I hope WTF will one day - maybe in 10-15 years be very important tournament. Players need to looking forward to play this event - i think making it best of 5 RR 2x groups by 4 players and it should be longer - more days to play, time to rest, at leasst 10 days, if IW and Miami could be longer than 7 days, why not WTF? The winner of WTF should be considered as tennis champion of the world - slams are for history and for players to enjoy them, but WTF should be considered as world tennis championship and players should take it more seriously and really wanting to win that event.

Very good answer. I think the part I bolded is particulary interesting. Who says WTF has to be at the end of the calendar year. The race can start and end wherever they decide. Wimbledon might as well be the final slam of the "season". There are many parts of the season that feel like long waiting times for Master 1000 and slams. Of course even a Master 1000 could possibly be "transformed" into the big world tour final. And as also noted in the post. Tournaments DO CHANGE in prestige and value. I mean what is the reason the Champion of the ATP tour should not be prestigious? That tennis history people can't gloat over 5-6 straight times champions etc? Of course not! You'd have to face only top competition in the WTF. It would be crazy hard to win 5 straight. If not impossible in this era

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 02:21 PM
There haven't always been 4 slams, & there certainly haven't always been 4 slams roughly equal in prestige, so in theory there's no reason you couldn't add a 5th, indoor slam, preferably in Shanghai, with the slick surface used for the WTF, so we had at least 1 genuinely fast slam. But it wouldn't be the WTF if it were a slam.

Priam
06-06-2011, 02:23 PM
Why would the WTF give more points than a slam?

Mungo
06-06-2011, 02:26 PM
hahaha what a moronic thread. The WTF should give LESS points. Too many ranking points for hardcourts already. The WTF don't deserve 3/4 of the points a Grand Slam champion gets. It's not even played at 5 sets. Overrated tournament if there has ever been one.

yesh222
06-06-2011, 02:33 PM
No. But it makes a helluva lot more sense than giving the slams more points?

In all honesty the tour final should be made to be the years most prestigious and valuable tournament. Not saying that it has been that. I'm saying it SHOULD BE

In theory I don't so much disagree with this thread, but you can't regulate prestige. The Slams are the Slams just because they are and history made them that way, not because the ATP gives them the most points. While it is catching up, the AO is still the least prestigious and Wimbledon still is and always will be the most prestigious tennis tournament out there. If the ATP suddenly offered no points for Wimbledon everyone would want to play anyway. The WTF is the fifth most prestigious tournament out there and the ATP has done a great job increasing its prestige over the years, but it is still nowhere near what a Slam is. Maybe in 20 years if the players and fans look at it on par with the Slams it will become one. It certainly isn't close now.