Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 88 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,661 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We now proceed to the next step of the changes period. Here in this thread, players and managers can discuss the ideas which were brought up in the suggestions thread.

Please note: there are very few amendments to the scoring system this year, which is typically where the most discussion is centered. Rather, there is a lot more about introducing new wildcards, how and when to send picks, tracking commitments etc... many are great suggestions but most will create a lot more work for managers. Please keep all this in mind when voting.

The suggestions are ordered by numbers. You can discuss each of the topics and also reply to posts of other players. Please vote in the following "list" format so I can track easily in a spreadsheet:

#1: Yes/No/Don't Care
#2: Yes/No/Don't Care
ETC.....

It's not necessary to post about all the topics or vote for all changes, but player participation is important for any change to be made. After the discussion, possible changes will most likely be confirmed by a poll in a separated thread.

Deadline to comment: Sunday, November 25
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,661 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Re: TT Changes 2019

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES/ADDITIONS​

1. PROPOSED RULE: Indian Wells and Miami (128 draw tournaments) should be like the Grand Slams move to one deadline that will be set the day before qualifying starts
CURRENT RULE: One deadline a week before tournament starts, final deadline before qualifying

2. PROPOSED RULE: Add official Laver Cup tournament to the schedule, with top European and top Rest of World selecting their teams in early August (with a limit of 2 players of the same nationality). No points awarded - players can play both Laver Cup and a regular tournament the same week.
CURRENT RULE: No Laver Cup on the official schedule

3. PROPOSED RULE No qualifying for the new Challenger tournaments - everything starts on Monday, with commitments however remaining open only till Friday at 6pm CEST to sync with ATP calendar.
CURRENT RULE: Qualifying is held for all Challenger tournaments starting on Saturday until Monday. Moving forward in 2019, there will only be however 4 players in qualifying rather than the current 16 or 32.

4. PROPOSED RULE: Late entries ordered by commitment time rather than ranking.
CURRENT RULE: Late entries are ordered by ranking

5. PROPOSED RULE: Point structure for both IW & MIAMI , in between a typical MASTERS 500 POINTS and GS 1000 POINTS at 750 POINTS , as it's harder then a Typical MASTERS but not as difficult with quite as many 2 day rounds as a GS.
CURRENT RULE: Winners of IW and Miami receive 500 points.

6. PROPOSED RULE: Allowing top 30 players to play challengers any week of the season, only as TOP 30 LE, on bottom of ENTRY LIST with highest ranking top 30 player at bottom of list.
CURRENT RULE: 2.2.7.1 Entry restriction
- Top 30 players in singles are not allowed to play challengers, except during the Davis Cup weeks, the second weeks of Grand Slams or two-week Masters events and when there are no other tournaments (ATP 250 or better) played.

7. PROPOSED RULE: Changing the point structure of the TT challenger tour, all 90's become 120 point structure and 120's increased by 33% to 160 point structure.
CURRENT RULE: 90’s are on a 90pt challenger structure etc…

8. PROPOSED RULE: No LE before first deadline.
CURRENT RULE: LE’s can be committed before first deadline if they change tournaments, enter a challenger as top 30 player etc…

9. PROPOSED RULE: SE into ATP 250 and ATP 500 tournaments is allowed by reaching a Challenger final.
CURRENT RULE: No SE’s for challenger winners into ATP events.

10. PROPOSED RULE: The doubles Race to be done in partnerships
CURRENT RULE: Players are ranked individually based on results

11. PROPOSED RULE: Wild card series' not to include a CH title, just adding points from the 5 or so selected tournaments.
CURRENT RULE: WC series includes CH

12. PROPOSED RULE: LL Players should be able to enter the doubles draw individually if they wish.
CURRENT RULE: No current rule on this.

13. PROPOSED RULE: Top 50 players should not be allowed to enter a challenger tournament in a week when there are two ATPs
CURRENT RULE: Top 30 players are not allowed in non Davis Cup weeks or second week of a Slam.

14. PROPOSED RULE: Maximum number of tournament played a year like 30 or 35 to stick with ATP reality (fatigue) and open spots to TT lower ranked players.
CURRENT RULE: No restrictions on how many weeks a player can play.

15. PROPOSED RULE: Players should be able to send separate picks for singles and doubles.
CURRENT RULE: One set of picks per player

16. PROPOSED RULE: LIMIT the amount of ALTS allowed in an event, if over say ALT 4 at first deadline, moved out of EL (to another event with space maybe) , likely vote if passed for actual number 4,5,6 etc.
CURRENT RULE: No restrictions on ALT’s.

17. PROPOSED RULE: New Davis Cup Format: TT DC to follow ITF's changes.
CURRENT RULE: Follow the current Davis Cup format.
(NOTE HERE: We will be moving to the new format regardless, not sure we need to vote on this. Keqtqiadv’s suggestions are great though contained in this post - https://www.menstennisforums.com/40636484-post28.html)

18. PROPOSED RULE: When doubles partner no sends, the picks you sent get used twice instead.
CURRENT RULE: No send picks are counted as such

19. PROPOSED RULE: On the Monday in a CH to please not include FQR in OOP if number of matches exceeds the minimum amount needed.
CURRENT RULE: There is no current rule as new Challengers start next year. Typically however FQR matches are always included in OOP’s.

20. PROPOSED RULE: TT WC's for everytime you win a PAW event
CURRENT RULE: No WC’s for PAW events.

21. PROPOSED RULE: WCs for ATP Main Draws for successful doubles teams at the challenger level.
CURRENT RULE: No current rule on doubles WC’s

22. PROPOSED RULE: Limit the amount of TOURNAMENTS per MANAGER
CURRENT RULE: If you want to manage, you manage 

23. PROPOSED RULE: Deadline = time set or whenever all have sent
CURRENT RULE: Deadline is start of play or time set, not when all picks have been received.

24. PROPOSED RULE: Allowing picks to be forwarded by the player who posts the OOP if not the MANAGER , as long as it is forwarded by the send deadline.
CURRENT RULE: Picks not sent directly to manager not supposed to be accepted

25. PROPOSED RULE: Clarify this: 6.1.1.5 WTF & Challenger Tour Finals
- Players are not allowed to play both Challenger Tour Finals & World Tour Finals, even if they are played in different weeks.
CURRENT RULE: No one should be able to play both tournaments, even if players have qualified for both and they are played in separate weeks.

26. PROPOSED RULE: WC CHALLENGE FOR THE GS AND M1000
I want to propose this because it will be a great chance for the lower ranked players to play a WC Challenger Tournament on December for example and get a WC to play the AO, like the real one.
CURRENT RULE: No current rule

27. PROPOSED RULE: If a set is fully played I think we should consider it for “set to the winner”, “TB” or “PTS” purpose... retirement are usually unfair
CURRENT RULE: Only matches that finish are counted for set to winner or PTS purposes.

28. PROPOSED RULE: You can set second deadline at whatever time you want.
CURRENT RULE: Second deadline is the Friday before qualifying.

29. PROPOSED RULE: You shouldn't be made a LE because you move tournaments before the final deadline. It could be limited to one move if it's a concern that people will move around a lot causing unnecessary work for managers.
CURRENT RULE: A player is LE as soon as they move tournaments.

30. PROPOSED RULE: You suggest a major change, you are responsible for implementation 
CURRENT RULE: None.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,661 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Re: TT Changes 2019

1. Yes to proposed rule. Indian Wells and Miami are like Grand Slams and should be treated/managed as such. There is never a need for LE's as the full draw doesn't fill up, so no need for the old deadline/second deadline format when many more players played.

2. Yes to proposed rule. Like it or not Laver Cup is an important "event" on the ATP now. And TT exhibitions are fun.

3. Yes to proposed rule. Lets start Challengers on Monday with MD matches and not a day or so of qualifying. Failure to adapt to new system would create chaos for managers if it rains first few days.

4. No strong opinion on this. As a manager though it is a ton of extra work for people who have to wait until the last possible moment to commit when a thread has been open for weeks, so soft yes to the proposed rule.

5. Yes to the proposed rule. IW and Miami are not equivalent to ATP 1000's as a1canada pointed out. More matches, longer tournament etc...

6. Yes to the proposed rule. There seems to be a huge complaint from challenger players how hard it is to get points etc... its actually never been easier. Players are getting BYE's into R2 of 120 pt challengers and most challengers are never full. When I started, you qualified for CHALLENGERS. Its a slippery slope in this game too when you start making a bunch of rules that penalize players or restrict their choices - its a game. If I want to play a challenger because its in Winnipeg and I will be there in person, then I should be able to play that challenger. No lower ranked player will lose a spot in that challenger.

7. I am for implementing the same point system that the ATP uses for the challengers in the new format, not inventing on for TT. And again as mentioned above, challengers are rarely full - players have never had it easier to gain points. Doubling points is unnecessary.

8. No keep current rule. You can commit whenever you want.

9. No. Challengers are not ATP 250's or 500's. They should be separate.

10. No need for this rule. The best teams always play together, and will finish the end of year with the same points. Some players switch partners though, and could be heavily penalized under this new proposed rule.

11. No keep current rule.

12. No

13. No. As I mentioned before, we have plenty of space in challengers. Its never been easier to get points. Current rules are fine.

14. NO. TT is a game - if someone wants to play every week of the year, they should be able to do so. And who would volunteer to track 200 players and how many tournaments they commit to all year? It would be a year long job.

15. I'm opposed to this on principle, but if the masses want it, so be it. Managers for Grand Slams in particular would have a lot of "fun" with this if we implement it.

16. No. Why the extra effort? If you commit and end up ALT 20, that's your problem as a player. And I can just see the problems: someone commits and comes back to MTF four days later to find out their commitment was denied, and its too late to commit elsewhere. That's just one example.

17. Keqtqiadv's proposed changes are all sound and regardless he has run Davis Cup excellently for years and opinion should matter more than any of us. Dont see a scenario where we could keep old system anyways.

18. Nope current rule should stand. Rewarding teams who can't send is less fun than walkovers.

19. No strong opinion on this. There will only be 2 qualifying matches on the Monday as far as I can tell so not sure why we need this rule. Plus with the challenger tour much more professional and restricted next year, there will be fewer no names in the draws.

20. NO. PAW and TT have nothing to do with each other.

21. No to proposed rule. Challengers are different than ATP. Like real ATP, you should have to work your way up, both in singles and doubles. And how will this work if we implement a limit to ALT's as a1canada suggested? Players ranked 200 in singles and doubles will see themselves get a WC for doubles and then can't play singles.

22. No. Unless @a1canada wants to continue recruiting an army of new managers every few months. We had a lot of new managers this year, but also many who managed once or twice and stopped. We need frankly a few managers to take 20-25 tournaments a year to keep the calendar moving.

23. No strong opinion.

24. YES. Its nonsense to be so strict. If picks were sent before deadline to person who posted OOP, they should count. Mistakes happen.

25. Yes to allowing players to play both challenger and main ATP finals. If you qualified, you qualified and earned it. Plus they aren't even the same week.

26. No. Too many proposals for WC's. We could end up with a system with 10 different ways to get wildcards. Current system is fine.

27. No keep the current system. Amending the spreadsheet for one for this new rule is beyond my capabilities. But current system is fair.

28. Sure to the proposed rule. Managers have lives, should be able *within reason* to be flexible with deadlines and when entry lists close.

29. No to proposed rule. Would be so hard to track this.

30. Yes. "You break it, you fix it" :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
41,440 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

Yes means proposed rule
No means current rule


1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. No
11. No
12. No
13. No
14. No
15. No
16. No
17. it is up to keqtiadv
18. No
19. Yes
20. No
21. No
22. No
23. Yes, I mean manager to can post diffs when they have everything
24. No
25. Yes
26. No
27. No
28. No
29. No, but players to can move before first deadline
30.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

22. No. Unless @a1canada wants to continue recruiting an army of new managers every few months. We had a lot of new managers this year, but also many who managed once or twice and stopped. We need frankly a few managers to take 20-25 tournaments a year to keep the calendar moving.

somewhat agree @ibreak4coffee , but at some point needs to be a cutoff so others will step up , maybe 20 was a better number, bry17may's ending was a perfect example of far to much managing, as we all tried to avoid these events so we could get diffs
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,661 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Re: TT Changes 2019

22. No. Unless @a1canada wants to continue recruiting an army of new managers every few months. We had a lot of new managers this year, but also many who managed once or twice and stopped. We need frankly a few managers to take 20-25 tournaments a year to keep the calendar moving.

somewhat agree @ibreak4coffee , but at some point needs to be a cutoff so others will step up , maybe 20 was a better number, bry17may's ending was a perfect example of far to much managing, as we all tried to avoid these events so we could get diffs
I get your point and its well taken. The issue is simply filling the calendar. One year someone like rus59 or Walsall can manage 20 tournaments, then life takes over and they can't. You can manage when you aren't hanging around with the whales etc... I have to step away from managing completely. If someone has the capacity to take on a lot of tournaments (like dinkulpus right now) then its frankly needed, unless we tighten the calendar. We didn't have a problem this year getting managers (mostly thanks to your efforts), but its been a recurring problem for years.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
41,440 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

Let's take my idea here, when I was managing the calendar there were two tournament per month for every manager in the applying period, after that when we have gaps they were filled by managers.

Personally I don't like managing every week, but sometimes when they are no managers I take everything, this is because my job is possible to manage.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

Let's take my idea here, when I was managing the calendar there were two tournament per month for every manager in the applying period, after that when we have gaps they were filled by managers.

Personally I don't like managing every week, but sometimes when they are no managers I take everything, this is because my job is possible to manage.
Yes this and possibly not 2 weeks in a row, I've seen it with some managers this year (and myself at times) , it is a lot of work running a tournament and deadlines on others at the same time, something gets neglected , or at least unless experienced like yourself / Walsall to be able to have 2 weeks in a row at first commitment to managing , hard to monitor, even maybe something like 1 choice only first then a second deadline for a second choice of what is remaining , would need to be well organized to make this work, with planned dates.

In a perfect scenario, everyone would manage once monthly and do top notch Job that week !

I remember your offseason comment that you figured out how to be TOP 10, I bet not managing so much would greatly help that GOAL !!:grin2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,644 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

1.Yes to new rule. It's a huge tournament. Give it more
2. Yes, TT exhibitions are fun
3. Current rule, more players= more opportunites
4. Yes to Proposed rule
5. Current Rule
6. Proposed Rule
7. Current Rule
8. Proposed Rule
9. Current Rule
10. Proposed Rule
11. Current Rule
12. Current rule.
13. Current Rule
14. Current Rule
15. Current Rule
16. Current Rule
17. Let Keqtqiadv Decide
18. Current rule
19. Current Rule
20. Current rule ( its a different game....)
21. ehhh how about a challenger race for some 250s
22. Current rule ( LOL on that proposed one bahahahahahhahah what)
23. Current rule (unless posted by manager that they have a deadline problem so theyre just posting when all sent)
24. Proposed (should be on the person who posted if they want to forward or not)
25. Current
26. ehhh not 1000s
27. Current
28. Current
29. current
30. eh you should help yeah
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

#1. YES - No need for 2 deadlines when draw never full.
#2. YES - It will be fun!
#3. YES - Is there any other choice though?
#4. YES - It will help managers and players will have a clear picture of what's going on once they commit, knowing nobody will take their place.
#5. YES - Harder than all other Masters 1000
#6. YES - A top 30 playing a challenger is leaving a spot open in regular ATP, which awards more points.
#7. NO - I believe an increment should happen, but not changing 120 tp 160. For me a better idea wold be for ALL challengers to be worth 120 points, as there is no real difference in tt between one and the other in degree of difficulty
#8. NO - I don't see how this change brings any improvement
#9. YES - It's a good reward for challenger players and it doesn't really affect anyone.
#10. NO - You should have the chance to play if your partner just quits mid-season and you have done a great job with 2 different partners
#11. NO - Why would it not?
#12. YES - Not much extra work for managers and it will help have a full doubles draw, whis is more fun to anyone
#13. NO - For the same reason as #6
#14. NO - There is no fatigue in TT and everyone likes playing weekly.
#15. NO - Even though I like the idea, it could potentially make the manager's job much harder.
#16. NO - Players should be smart and not enter tournaments that already have many LEs. With rule #4 this will be even easier.
#17. YES - Looks good.
#18. NO - It is a player's responsability to find a reliable partner. It wouldn't be fair to the team that did send entirely.
#19. NO - I don't see it being a problem with the new changes in challengers.
#20. NO - Different games. It would be like a badminton champion getting a wild card for a ATP event.
#21. NO - If they are succesful, the ranking will do that for them.
#22. NO - That's the ideal scenario, but with the current situation I don't see it viable. I like dinkulpus idea of limiting 2 per month at first and then fill gaps with whoever wants more.
#23. YES - It could help managers.
#24. YES - I see no harm here.
#25. NO - More chances for different players.
#26. No strong opinion on this one.
#27. NO - It would add a lot of manual work for the manager unless someone can upgrade the spreadsheet (does not look easy at all).
#28. YES if it means whatever time within that friday.
#29. NO - Hard to track and to keep clean entry lists.
#30. NO - There is a reason we have a board. One of the board's tasks is to implement changes voted by majority of players. If someone can't do this, then shouldn't be on the board.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

27. PROPOSED RULE: If a set is fully played I think we should consider it for “set to the winner”, “TB” or “PTS” purpose... retirement are usually unfair
CURRENT RULE: Only matches that finish are counted for set to winner or PTS purposes.

@ibreak4coffee @nachotuerto I meant to mention this earlier but it slipped my mind, but actually there would be no spreadsheet adjustment required, just managers knowing you must enter 10 in the score line, I accidentally figured this one out when I had a retirement in a FINAL, and I knew it should not be won by set to winner, if you put it in the sheet 1-0 it counts the SET TO WINNER, if you just put it in with no score as the sheet tells you to do, it does not.

Not saying that changes the way you feel, but the spreadsheet needing fixing would not be the reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,073 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

27. PROPOSED RULE: If a set is fully played I think we should consider it for “set to the winner”, “TB” or “PTS” purpose... retirement are usually unfair
CURRENT RULE: Only matches that finish are counted for set to winner or PTS purposes.

@ibreak4coffee @nachotuerto I meant to mention this earlier but it slipped my mind, but actually there would be no spreadsheet adjustment required, just managers knowing you must enter 10 in the score line, I accidentally figured this one out when I had a retirement in a FINAL, and I knew it should not be won by set to winner, if you put it in the sheet 1-0 it counts the SET TO WINNER, if you just put it in with no score as the sheet tells you to do, it does not.

Not saying that changes the way you feel, but the spreadsheet needing fixing would not be the reason.
It actually does change the way I feel, since the spreadsheet was my only concern.

So, I am changing:

#27. YES - If a set is played, I think it is fair to consider it for PTS, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,426 Posts
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. Yes
11. No
12. No
13. Yes
14. Yes
15. No
16. No
17. Yes
18. No
19. No
20. No no no
21. No
22. No no no
23. Yes
24. No
25. Yes
26. No
27. Yes
28. No
29. No
30. No
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

1. YES - TBH I had never even noticed that there was only 1 deadline at GS until this issue came up at IW, always enter very early.

2. NO - another DC cup style is unlikely to Find good management, KEQTQIADV does enough already.

3. MAYBE - not enough known to say what it could look like

4.YES - problem is the EL sheet, maybe the code that is in the TF sheet can be transferred by someone skilled

5. YES - so very similar to a GS

6. YES - it's a game no reason to be restrictive

7. YES- but does not have to be the point structure I'm suggesting, after research it won't have a huge effect, some extra movement but not lots, still will need to perform to make a move up. The KEY POINT
to this suggestion is to stop the poor quality events we have now and to have 1 full challenger every week that would be hard earned points, to qualify for more points it would have to have full MD and 8 Q minimum, not 20 players in 2 separate events, getting BYES and walkover. Having said this , @ibreak4coffee has a point this year with new challenger structure , it's a hard year to make any suggestions or changes to Challengers, something the board should deal with as information is released.

8. NO - this is the best rule MTF has , players will learn after a couple of times, how to treat deadline, a big part of being a successful TT player is how you choose event!

9. MAYBE - into a 250 from a quality challenger, but into a 250 from an ASIAN FINAL that you won 1 round could happen, so would be subjective for me, if RULE 7 and came from event with full MD and Q ,YES

10. NO- doesn't really matter, and will have no effect, just creating work to refer to

11. YES - I suppose someone could make 4 SF in a row, so why not

12. NO -could work, but I don't want to manage this way, enough headaches already from doubles

13. NO- there are many reasons a player chooses an event, some based on partner, top 50 or whatever number, play where you want

14. NO- some actually play this amount, but many will stop playing if they start to have weeks they can not play

15. YES - it's a game, strategy is enjoyed by some, others just pick what they think is best, again why be restrictive, in GS and MASTERS if was used a lot manager may quit though, haha, so I could see a case for QF or later in GS/MASTERS

16. YES - 2 tournaments Weeks / Masters ALTS are a big pain, this can be handled right at the first deadline, as all LE's will fall to ALT in a full event, all ALTS can get a PM that there entry is not valid after certain number 4-6 or so. Sure they may not find out for a while, but they were not getting to play anyway!

17. only Keqtqiadv's opinion should matter here, as understands better then casual player

18. NO - but you might as well say this happens lots anyway , as many copy there partners picks

19. MAYBE - would at least like to see clearly in rules manager can choose, there are time the only competitive matches are FQR

20. NO - rules in PAW are to different to make it mean anything

21. NO - doubles WC is a pain on TF, as they mostly can not play singles, adding to the fact many doubles points in challengers are hardly earned some weeks, especially from Asian events.

22. NO - I proposed knowing it would not pass, but there does need to be some limits to save ourselves from managing to much , especially in short intervals , if we had limits and a tournament could not be run, you would soon see some veterans that do not manage step up are part of my thoughts, secondly we get tired but also feel guilty if a tournament is not finding a host, so manage when we should not have to. I just added up that I did 30 between MTF/TF/UTT crazy.

23. YES -mentioned earlier I would like to see this , last pick is received you POST DIFFS , will make no difference most days, as players send in last hour almost every day, but in SF and F it is valuable.

24. YES - everyone has made the mistake of sending to the OOP poster at some point, the problem with this is they need to be responsible if posting OOP and forward by deadline, if they can not, do not post OOP.

25. YES - if you have earned both CHALLENGERS FINALS and WTF , awesome year and enjoy the spoils.

26. MAYBE - there could be something for WC to bigger events , but I do not see where we will find someone to run this idea, so needs more thought.

27. YES- This is practically the definition of SET TO WINNER, the player wins the set you need, but then it can be taken away by retirement , can't understand the opposition to this one.

28. YES - you already can move it around on Friday, and must for ASIA for example, really on MTF there is minimal movement after the first deadline, Wednesday or Thursday at 6 pm CET would be just fine on ATP but not in challengers, so a bit subjective, I guess using the rule that deadline is to be extended if not full in combination would assure it's fine to set for any day you like after the 1st deadline.

29. NO - players quickly learn, well some do, to be careful after becoming LE this way once, thus saving managers work, it even says in the rules you should enter as "IN as LE " ,which is rarely done now, at one time it was always used.

30. NO - but this is likely meant for me, and if so I think we know I'm more then willing to put any effort required !
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

1. PROPOSED RULE - Sure, this makes sense.
2. PROPOSED RULE - I don't really care.
3. No preference.
4. PROPOSED RULE - If I can change one rule about TT, it would be this.
5. CURRENT RULE - Indian Wells and Miami are just as hard to win on the real tour yet they award the same amount of ranking points.
6. CURRENT RULE
7. CURRENT RULE
8. PROPOSED RULE - This honestly wouldn't change much anyways...
9. CURRENT RULE - There's already a WC system in place. Nothing else is necessary.
10. No preference. I don't really think it matters that much.
11. PROPOSED RULE
12. CURRENT RULE - No way.
13. CURRENT RULE - Proposed rule isn't fair to doubles partnerships like mine. I'm ranked way higher in singles than my doubles partner, so I'd like to play challengers in order to continue to play doubles with him.
14. CURRENT RULE - Hell no. Couldn't imagine a week without TT.
15. PROPOSED RULE - This makes sense. The singles and doubles events are two different competitions.
16. CURRENT RULE - Too much work.
17. PROPOSED RULE
18. CURRENT RULE - No way.
19. I don't mind either way.
20. CURRENT RULE - This shouldn't even be up for discussion.
21. PROPOSED RULE
22. CURRENT RULE - Proposed rule would never work. People would constantly have to override the rule. What are we going to do cancel the event if a new manager can't take it?
23. CURRENT RULE - Everyone should have the period of time between when they send and when the deadline is written to change picks if necessary.
24. CURRENT RULE
25. CURRENT RULE - If a player is able to play both, it gives too many bonus points.
26. CURRENT RULE - No need for more WCs.
27. PROPOSED RULE
28. PROPOSED RULE - I've actually created my own deadlines not knowing this was a rule in order to make it best satisfy my time zone.
29. PROPOSED RULE - Maybe we set a max number of commitments to tournaments per week before the first deadline. Like a player can commit to a maximum of two tournaments, but must withdraw from one of them before the Sunday deadline. If this becomes an issue (which it shouldn't), then we can work to create more rules.
30. CURRENT RULE - Ultimately, I think the TT Board is responsible for the interpretation and implementation of rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,499 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

1. CURRENT RULE
2. PROPOSED RULE
3. PROPOSED RULE
4. PROPOSED RULE
5. PROPOSED RULE
6. CURRENT RULE
7. CURRENT RULE. But it depends on how we deal with new challengers.
The 2019 Challenger calendar has been published for January.
WEEK 1 [Brisbane/Doha/Pune]
- Noumea, New Caledonia (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 90 ($81,000)
- Playford, Australia (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 90 ($81,000)
- Waco, TX, USA (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 90 ($81,000)

WEEK 2 [Auckland/Sydney]
- Canberra, Australia (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)
- Columbus, OH, USA (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)
- Da Nang, Vietnam (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)

WEEK 3 [Australian Open]
- Koblenz, Germany (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 80 (€46,000)

WEEK 4 [Australian Open]
- Newport Beach, CA, USA (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 125 ($162,000)
- Rennes, France (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 90 (€69,000)
- Burnie, Australia (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)
- Punta del Este, Uruguay (Clay) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)

WEEK 5 [Davis Cup]
- Cleveland, OH, USA (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 90 ($81,000)
- Launceston, Australia (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)
- Quimper, France (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 80 (€46,000)

WEEK 6 [Montpellier, Sofia, Quito]
- Dallas, TX, USA (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 110 ($102,000)
- Budapest, Hungary (Hard Indoor) / Challenger Tour 80 (€46,000)
- Chennai, India (Hard Outdoor) / Challenger Tour 80 ($54,000)

We have:
- Challengers 125
- Challengers 90
- Challengers 80

I think we should say that Challengers 125 and Challengers 110 are worth 120 ranking points. All the others are worth 90 ranking points.

8. CURRENT RULE
9. CURRENT RULE
10. PROPOSED RULE
11. CURRENT RULE
12. CURRENT RULE
13. PROPOSED RULE
14. CURRENT RULE
15. PROPOSED RULE
16. CURRENT RULE (a doubles specialist outside the top 100 would be kicked out of ATP1000s and ATP500s)
17. PROPOSED RULE
18. CURRENT RULE - wtf?!
19. CURRENT RULE - qualifying matches are matches, why would we exclude matches from an OOP? Ridiculous
20. CURRENT RULE - are people drunk?
21. PROPOSED RULE - we should have a doubles WC race, just like we have a singles WC race (it is already in action in TT WTA)
22. CURRENT RULE
23. PROPOSED RULE - YAS QUEEN (I already do this anyway :lol: )
24. CURRENT RULE
25. PROP & CURR look the same to me? I want people to be able to play both if they want to - it's a game, let's stop trying to prevent people from PLAYING
26. PROPOSED RULE - good idea but only for Slams but : who will manage this? who commits to this? what match do we use as OOP?
27. CURRENT RULE - matches with retirement must always be void
28. CURRENT RULE
29. CURRENT RULE
30. PROPOSED RULE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
1. Proposed
2. Proposed
3. Proposed
4. Proposed
5. Proposed
6. Current
7. Current
8. Current
9. Current
10. Proposed
11. Current
12. Current
13. Proposed
14. Current
15. Current
16. Current
17. Proposed
18. Current
19. Proposed
20. Current
21. Proposed
22. Current
23. Current
24. Current
25. Proposed
26. Proposed
27. Current
28. Proposed
29. Current
30. Proposed
 

·
.
Joined
·
34,632 Posts
Re: TT Changes 2019

1. Yes.

2. Don't care. If players are interested, sure why not :p

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. No.

6. No.

7. No. I think the current points structure is fair. I wouldn't oppose a small increase, but 33%, 160-tournamens wouldn't really be challengers anymore. I like Walsall's suggestion (125 and 110 are worth 120 points & all the others are worth 90 points)

8. No. Top 30 LE and players who change tournaments must remain as LE.

9. No. Keep ATP rules - challengers and ATP 250/500 tournaments are not the same.

10. No. This suggestion comes up almost every year. :p I like the idea, but it's not fair to players who don't get to find a permanent partner.

11. No. It's not necessarily supposed to reward consistency.

12. No.

13. No.

14. No. We try to stick with ATP, but it's still a game, so players should be able to play as much as they want.

15. No. The game is about picking winners (not creating win-win situations). Picking for both singles and doubles can be very challenging sometimes, but I think it's actually one of the best features of the game. (copied & pasted last year's vote :p)

16. No. It's a player's option to be ALT99 or to move to another tournament.

17. Yes :p

18. No.

19. No.

20. No.

21. No.

22. No.

23. Yes (only if no player has indicated they might change picks close to the deadline).

24. Yes.

25. This rule was voted years ago, and I agree with it. I like the fact that it rewards more (different) players with spots in the year-end events.

26. No. Enough WCs.

27. No. I prefer the current rule, but I must say: management spreadsheet already allows sets to the winner to be counted in case of retirement (but PTS would have to be counted manually). Some other settings such as using GD before, after or instead of PTS are also available in case of a rule change in the future.

28. No. Managers already have some flexibility on setting the 2nd deadline.
TT Rules said:
- The Friday before the start of the event is the final deadline (the exact time is up to the manager) for changes and late registrations.
29. No. I don't see the difference between moving from a tournament to another as close to the deadline as possible and commiting once to a tournament as close to the deadline as possible.

30. No.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,025 Posts
1. Current
2. Proposed
3. Current. Only out of fear of not enough space.
4. Proposed
5. Proposed
6. Current
7. Current. Its fair but would rather see diff gaps per round.
8. Proposed
9. Proposed
10. Proposed
11. Proposed
12. Dont care
13. Proposed
14. Current
15. Dont care
16. Dont care
17. Dont care. Im from Ireland ;/
18. Proposed
19. Proposed
20. Proposed
21. Proposed
22. Current
23. Proposed
24. Dont care
25. Current
26. Proposed
27. Proposed
28. Proposed
29. Proposed
30. Proposed
 
1 - 20 of 88 Posts
Top