Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Article was in German, sorry for the very rough google translation. Very interesting stuff including saying about the surface homogenization: "Above all, a man whose name I do not want to call, had lobbied for it because the sport was better to sell."

http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/sport/tennis/Die-Stars-muessen-haeufiger-verlieren-/story/31665372

Roger Federer was six years as president of the ATP Player Council. What has he achieved?
Gilles Simon: I myself am going for two years. The most important thing at this time were the negotiations with the representatives of the Grand Slam tournaments. We forced them to double the prize money within four years. This success would have been impossible without Federer.

Why?
support of top players was important. Federer is not one of those who need more money, but he fought for this cause and took the risk, in the media and the public to be bad. He really did a great job.

Would not it important that the Challenger tournaments, more money would be distributed as at the Grand Slam events?
It was right first fight out the battle with the Grand Slam tournaments. The degree to which the player participated in the profits of these events was ridiculous. It should benefit everyone, even the Erstrundenverlierer ...

The ... now earn 30,000 euros.
This seems to be a large sum, but it is the expenditure of a tennis professionals to consider. If the number 90 of the world ceases to four times in the first round, cover the cover 120,000 euros just the pay and expenses of the coach. We must try to make the kebabs at least similar long. Stars such as Federer and Djokovic have two coaches, a fitness trainer, a physiotherapist, a stringer - everything they want. And then they come up against opponents who can not even afford a coach. No wonder they win in the early rounds often 6:1, 6:2, 6:0.

Why is that a problem?
This has been seen in women's tennis. As the best substandard others, it was called immediately, the tournament will start properly until the second week. We need to create a good product. Players who can not afford a private coach, have little chance to improve themselves, and are therefore destroyed by Federer and Nadal on the court. This is not a good signal. The players should not put more money in your pocket, but invest the revenue again in about a physiotherapist.

And how are those who are not among the first 120, to make ends meet?
The idea is that the smaller tournaments have to follow suit, but there is a problem: In the calendar it has many tournaments, make no profit, but they make no space for other operators that could be commercially successful.

Many smaller tournaments have trouble financially to make ends meet. The Swiss Open is indeed profitable, but because it belongs to the 250cc category, it is hardly possible top players to Gstaad allows locken.Wie to solve this problem?
I have ideas, but I must stress that I outer my personal opinion. The main problem is the ATP 1000 events. Because there are mandatory tournaments and you can not replace the dots as in the Grand Slams, the calendar is almost set for a top-50 player.

In what way?
13 tournaments are mandatory, then you have four 500 events contest. Then there are the tournaments to which can not be ignored because of the appointment: a tournament before the Australian Open, a grass tournament before Wimbledon. Without Davis Cup already 19 tournaments are fixed. I have never told a player, the Swiss Open is bad - in fact, everyone's talking about Gstaad, and yet it has only one top-20 player in the tableau. Today, 50 percent of all operators of 250 tournaments make loss - the problem is obvious.

And what is your solution?
There must be less mandatory bets, six 1000 events would be enough, and participation in the 500 tournaments would have to be voluntary. Who denies a small tournament, often shoots itself in the foot. If I want to play in Nice, where I was born, I have one behind the other in Rome, Madrid, Nice and Paris compete - that's too much. It is also important that you can replace the points. So would about a player who has failed in Miami in the first round to deny a real incentive, a small tournament to earn points. That would be good for everyone. The players were more flexible in planning, the smaller tournaments have better fields.

Many complained that the season was too long and too tiring. Now she is a little shorter, and what happened? In Asia, an Exhibition-League was formed. For outsiders, the tennis pros seem pretty greedy.
, you are right. The development also I do not like. For me, the season is not too long. Bad binned players and doubles players must have all year on the way to earn money. But I see two problems.

And that would be?
First, there are many people who want to be stuck in the sport of tennis the money, but you can find under the ATP Tour's no place for their investments. The premiums of the show events are totally almost as high as the total prize money of the tour; that's not good. Secondly, I am unsure whether participation in Exhibitions is a good pre-season. But tennis is a job. Would you go if you could earn in a month in Asia as much as usual throughout the year?

Probably.
Eben. At 5 percent more revenue would most probably do without, but if anyone can double his income on casual way, he was stupid, he would not take the money.

Stan Wawrinka wants to be president of the player council, you want that too. Who will be elected?
Many colleagues have asked me to take over the office. I was surprised how Wawrinka expressed, because he has not been a member of the gamers council. I think it would be better if he would take a seat only times until it has the necessary background knowledge. On the other hand it is also clear that it is good for the importance and credibility of the Council, when a top player is at the top.

How important is the office?
As president, you have no more power or other advantages. I was not urged before; the other members of the Players Council asked me to resign after Federer to take on the job.

How can you improve the product Men's Tennis yet? Federer says, for example, the pads are too similar.
Federer has always disturbed at similar coverings, because he is convinced that it can better adapt to different conditions than his main rival Djokovic, Murray and Nadal in particular. But the clay courts extremely slow, and lawn and indoor courts would be super fast, they would have won all only half as many titles.

Why?
If Federer plays on grass against Nadal two days after a clay court tournament, he is sure to win. But he would have to play against Raonic, who had trained on the ultra-fast grass a week because it would be excreted in the slow sand in the first round, Federer would have a hard time The stars were generally more trouble, sure.

Why are the conditions as they are today?
There was a political decision. It was the top players that were better than the others, consciously allows to bring to all the documents entitled, without having to change the game. Thus, the Men's Tennis won today's superstars. Above all, a man whose name I do not want to call, had lobbied for it because the sport was better to sell.

Are you sure the conditions to differentiate stronger?
Yeah, and for a reason: We lack young players who can prevail. The "Big 4" will not forever be at the top. But for the future of tennis we need young players who beat the superstars, while they are still playing their best tennis. We must avoid that the number 5 of today is the number one tomorrow. That would be a big problem, which can be seen in the women.

In what way?
WTA had a great Top 10 had, but then came within a short time many top players back or in the background. Suddenly, Samantha Stosur and Francesca Schiavone picked Grand Slam title without playing better than before. It is difficult to market the new generation when newcomers first three, losing four times in series against Djokovic and Nadal.

Just as it is but ...
Exactly. The stars have finally lose more often, so we need different coverings. It would also be good otherwise: The fans would get to see more different styles of play.

Wawrinka is 29 years old. Has his triumph in Melbourne tennis not revived?
But his Australian Open title was good - mainly because he plays wonderful tennis. Wawrinka brings through his style of variety in the top group. The case was different with Murray; as he played more finals against Djokovic, no enthusiasm came on. Wawrinkas successes are good for the ATP Tour, but we especially need young players who make a splash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,780 Posts
Some excellent stuff here. Thanks for the article. Let's see if Simon makes it.

The unnamed guy?

Maybe Etienne de Villiers? Maybe some influential coach or coaches?

Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,133 Posts
any financial benefits of being president?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,081 Posts
About court homogenization?: "Above all, a man whose name I do not want to call, had lobbied for it because the sport was better to sell."

I know 90% here will say this is Nadal, but I say it's someone else.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,272 Posts
I hope he works together with Wawrinka. Both of them give half a shit about PR and the ATP, so here's hoping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67,452 Posts
does he inclube banning wta on his program? :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,780 Posts
I'd argue the the man suggested is Toni or De Villiers, the CEO until 2008.



This is a serious thread.
Yes, as I posted previously, Etienne de Villiers was my first thought. The former Walt Disney president made a lot of changes.
Much of what he did was to favor the top players to ensure they would be competitive at the business end of tournaments. Homogenization would go along nicely with that.

For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etienne_de_Villiers

There is IMG influence at the top of ATP as well.
Tournament representative - Gavin Forbes - senior VP of IMG.

Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
I checked original german link, this translate wasn´t bad, but wasn´t great either.

Simon would be great president i think, the will have eletion before USO so i hope Simon will be elected, his opinions are good i think and he has knowledge about the game. Good point was about Wawrinka, he wasn´t on council before and suddenly he wants to be president... he should now be 2 years member and have more information than candidate.

Simon is right that for top 50 basically 18-19 events are already ,,scheduled,, with slams, MAsters1000, 500s you need to play and AO-Wimby warm-up tournaments. Also he is right about if someone loses in slam or Masters100 R1 he must count those points instead of counting for example SF from 250s where he can play great tennis.

250s can´t atrract top gyus unless they are rich events and can pay huge apperance fees to top guys, so than you are stucked with some top 20 and none top 10 and you are in loss - TV companies are not interrested to broadcast your event - so they will pay small sums and not many people will buy tickets and so on , sponsors not interrested so 250s are in losses.

Honestly must say that Simon has good knowledge and is not superstar like Roger so he could be great president - in term of thinking about lower ranked guys, yes Roger helped them with prize money, and not everyone can do that -if Federer comes to slam director and ask for 5% increase they will listen to him more than guy like Simon for sure
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,578 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
I checked original german link, this translate wasn´t bad, but wasn´t great either.
Well, there *are* good Google Translations around, but this sure as hell isn't one of them. I mean, I can't even work out what the original German was supposed to be for some of these sentences, it's so garbled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
Yes, as I posted previously, Etienne de Villiers was my first thought. The former Walt Disney president made a lot of changes.
Much of what he did was to favor the top players to ensure they would be competitive at the business end of tournaments. Homogenization would go along nicely with that.[snip]
There is IMG influence at the top of ATP as well.
Tournament representative - Gavin Forbes - senior VP of IMG.
The comment about the sport being easier to sell that way makes me convinced it wasn't one of the players, so I think you could well be right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,401 Posts
Yes, as I posted previously, Etienne de Villiers was my first thought. The former Walt Disney president made a lot of changes.
Much of what he did was to favor the top players to ensure they would be competitive at the business end of tournaments. Homogenization would go along nicely with that.

For more info, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etienne_de_Villiers

There is IMG influence at the top of ATP as well.
Tournament representative - Gavin Forbes - senior VP of IMG.

Respectfully,
masterclass
Yup, de Villiers is the most likely one. The timing (of the homogenization) matches up well, and he specifically talked about trying to make the sport appeal more to a modern audience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,310 Posts
I've come to read and hear many Gilles Simon's interview, and you can tell he is extremely smart, his post match interview are always interesting as are his opinion on tennis evolution. No surprise to see other players ask him to be president, he would be perfect.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top