Tsonga Wins; Strike Leader Murray Hammered; X-Notes

Before John Lloyd refers to Murray and co as “overpaid whusses”, he should reflect that if he had trained half as hard as Andy does, his own career might have been more successful.
As usual, people are lining up to sing a similar song, and are of course missing the point. Why, in any discussion, are 90% of the human race incapable of addressing the real point?
This is not about sympathy for the players, it’s about practicality and the entertainment value of the sport. I don’t feel sorry for Murray – he wouldn’t want it. Of course I envy him his wealth, but I sure as hell don’t envy him his life on the tour.
Unless we subscribe to the silly idea that the players who miss tournaments through injury or retire from matches are all, every one of them, faking, we have to understand that the tennis entertainment business (which is what it is) will not thrive if the fans cannot rely on the top players performing 100% in their matches – and completing those matches.
As I say, it’s not about sympathy, it’s about the commercial value of tennis.

September 26th, 2011 at 4:09 am

J0hn who?

September 26th, 2011 at 6:58 am

Excellent post, Colin. Actually, some of us have made the same point, but not so eloqently as you.

September 26th, 2011 at 8:18 am

“Budapest, Romania.”

lol

September 26th, 2011 at 9:16 am

Agree with colin completely. The players generate the revenue, bring the fans to the stadiums, the tv audience etc. They ARE the business- take them out and the ATP goes bust. The only demand they are making is for a better schedule that can help aid the maintainence of their fitness, performance and longevity in the game. Exactly what is wrong with such a demand? Absolutely nothing.

September 26th, 2011 at 9:21 am

Take the top five players out of the circus and tennis is as big a sport as beer pong.

September 26th, 2011 at 9:58 am

Xcuse me, try to get your reporting straight;

Federer has not mentioned the “S” word; in fact he’s barely referred to the statements made by Nadal and Murray and has said nothing much about the situation at the Open.

September 26th, 2011 at 10:39 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/20/andy-murray-atp-tour-strike

September 26th, 2011 at 11:12 am

Jane – Your right about Fed. Nothing much to say this go round, but he has voiced his opinion about this in the not so distant past, and it pretty much coincides with what Murray & co said. If someone were to ask him directly I’m sure he’d lend his support to the players.

September 26th, 2011 at 11:41 am

Just to clarify, @10:30 is not me, usual lower case “jane” :) I did read one report that included Fed in all the “strike” / schedule talk; I think was during DC. But he does seem to have been mainly reticent on the issue.

September 26th, 2011 at 1:21 pm

The statistician for the ATP tour India’s Mr. Somdev Devvarman…I have no idea how you come up with the 12%

September 26th, 2011 at 1:41 pm

jane @ 1.21: don’t worry, your style is quite different :)

September 26th, 2011 at 2:04 pm

@jane…..thanks for clarifying….I missed that :(…..sides..you never say Xcuse me ;)

September 26th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Creepers Scheepers!

September 26th, 2011 at 4:52 pm

Roger and I want to strike for only one reason – We can’t win big titles anymore.

September 26th, 2011 at 4:57 pm

Tennis Tipster: I love the way Scheepers plays. Can’t understand why she hasn’t achieved more, as she is now in her late twenties.

September 26th, 2011 at 5:13 pm

PS Shouldn’t it be Jeepers Scheepers…;)

September 26th, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Hi, everyone.

@scineram:

I read somewhere that 40% of Americans didn’t know where the Pacific Ocean was. I am certain it is a hoax, but Romania and Hungary are not so obvious on a map. (Is this politically correct?)

@jane:

Did I chat with you yesterday or with Jane?

September 26th, 2011 at 5:33 pm

jane – hah! Good thing you pointed that out. Actually, I was remembering comments Roger made last year. The top 3 guys have shown frustration with the schedule for the last couple of years. For Roger, much of the frustration centered on Davis Cup. He’s played very little dc because of the demands of the schedule. Now he’s taking alot of flak from sportswriters who make it sound as if he just didn’t care. Can’t please everybody, but he doesn’t deserve this criticism either.

September 26th, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Funny because Federer has still played in a lot more ties and has played a lot more matches in Davis Cup than either Nadal or Djokovic. (Surprisingly, Djokovic has actually played more than Nadal but that’s irrelevant).

September 26th, 2011 at 8:54 pm

mat4, with me, lower case jane. :) Tom Waits…

September 26th, 2011 at 9:07 pm

its hard to make comparisons between davis cup ties for these guys because they are different ages.
you’d have to look at how many roger played earlier in his career (remember, the man is 30 years old, has logically become more selective in his schedule), at similar points in his career as novak and rafa.
Rafa- first played in 2004 is 20-5 total
novak- first played in 2004 is 21-9 total
roger- first played in 1999 (again, dude is OLD, hehe) 41-12 total
do a little math and it will tell you that roger has played more Dcup matches per year than the others and since the swiss team is not as deep as the spanish team (and arguably the serbian one, with zimonjic being a top doubles player), you better believe roger is not sitting out any matches that he is at the tie.
i know that no one has specifically provoked this information, but with such a stellar career as roger’s, its one of the things people like to pick on- that he doesn’t have Dcup title, that he doesn’t care about Dcup, and the numbers show its just not true.
don’t know/think he will ever get that Dcup title with other nations having so many solid players compared to switzerland, but roger has been there trying for sure.

September 26th, 2011 at 9:17 pm

@jane:

I enjoyed recently in “Female tribute to Tom Waits”. I especially liked Jane Birkin’s singing of “Alice”, and Mélanie Rivaud’s cover of “The Fall of Troy”. Waits tries too hard sometimes, and it was refreshing.

I will be careful about the lower case in the future.

September 26th, 2011 at 9:43 pm

… But there is no sadness like Waits sadness.

September 26th, 2011 at 9:47 pm

It’s amazing how stupid the players can be at times. If the injuries are increasing, it is because of the new string technology, not the crowded scheduling. that is what players/fans should ask the atp to regulate, not the schedule.

the top players play what? 28 or 30 weeks at the most. sensible players like Roger take 1 month break every 2 months are so.

you can be sure 90 players out of the top 100 think they want more tournaments. it is only the top 10 that make some serious killing on the money front.

the players’ main gripe is that they want less mandatory events so that they can demand heavy appearance fees from more tournaments. as it stands, players cant get appearance fees from mandatory tournaments.

lendl/connors played 100+ matches a season regularly. edberg/mcenroe/stich played doubles too. the biggest reason for the injuries is these crazy strings that demand more out of a players body than the older racquets.

September 27th, 2011 at 1:09 am

I made, on a another occasion, a comment on the Murray/Lloyd/injury/strike business broadly in line with Colin’s (at beginning of this thread). However, Cindy Brady makes a provocative post with three significant points. I hope she doesn’t mind me summarising them, because taken together they present a quite different aspect:

1)injuries are caused predominantly by the new string technology and not overscheduling.
2)the problem really is about more loot – the business about no appearance fees from mandatory events.
3)Lendl/Connors etc played 100+ matches without incurring injuries.

If these points are valid, then the top players are looking greedy, especially considering how much they earn already. However, there is a complication w.r.t. the new string technology. Sports technology evolves fairly rapidly and it is virtually impossible to go backwards – a certain level of expectation about “power” tennis is now rooted in the minds of tennis followers.

All the same, it looks like this is a more complicated business than I had originally envisaged. Perhaps someone in the know might like to comment on what Cindy Brady has to say? In short, is she right?

September 27th, 2011 at 7:38 am

@Grendel, Cindy Brady:

I wrote a similar post but didn’t post it. The top 3 earn more than 1M $ of extra appearance fee by tournament. It is a good reason to ask for less mandatory tournaments. In the past, we have witnessed that top players used every occasion to play exhibitions and smaller events, or, like they do sometimes, to sign contracts and then fail to show up, mentioning various undefined injuries.

About the strings: Agassi says that the new string technology changed the game. Indeed. It allows a better control of the shots, longer rallies, sharper angles. There is no regulation in that area, and I don’t see how it can be introduced now.

Did tennis become more physical? I am not sure. I watched some matches from the 80 and 90 recently, and it was very physical then, too. But for players like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray who rely very much on defense and running abilities, it could be more physical. But, come on, they don’t play 5 setters every day, and this format doesn’t exist any more out of the GS. Then, they have an additional day of rest at the beginning of MS1000 tournaments. They play at least 20 matches less by season than players from 20 years ago. The only problem is that they can’t duck difficult matches and avoid each other.

It is very interesting that two of the most irresponsible tennis stars are complaining the most: Nadal, who plays every tournament he can, and Murray, known for “training new shots and strategies” at lesser events, or not showing at all (Dubai, Marseilles).

September 27th, 2011 at 9:27 am

CB,
Great poat @ 1:09.

Strings, and rackets have made the game faster. They have also slowed down the surface. Therefore, to make up the difference players have had to run faster, longer, harder, prepare earlier, etc. It’s a much faster game now. Just you tube a match in the beyond this decade versus today.

I can see where it may be more taxing on the body than those days. But then again, guys actually train with weights, and have newer tech in nutririon. Until Lendl and Agassi, it was McDonalds, cigarretes and Beer.

Don’t know about all this talk about mo money for players and too much tennis. I thought this was all about the USO scheduling snafu so it wouldn’t happen again. The rest sounds like the Political version of “Pork”.

September 27th, 2011 at 10:04 am

I won’t pretend to know anything about how the sponsorships, etc. work with the ATP but what most people are pissed about, mainly those who a) don’t play anymore and b) don’t play at all, is that the top 10 players are making all the money so should, therefore, just get over it. It’s almost like saying someone who makes cakes for celebrity events for a living has no right to complain when they’re told to make 18 cakes in one day. Granted, that’s a bit extreme, but it’s the impression I’m getting.

I do know that there’s choice in terms of tournaments played, but I sense the players feel an obligation to play tournaments where sponsorship and fan appearance is contingent on their arrival. I mentioned to someone that it seems there’s a great deal of “dance, monkey, dance” among fans and magazine/blogging pundits. My standpoint is there shouldn’t be hardcore gripes about the players desiring a more palatable schedule. As far as I know the top 30 players are mandated to play nine Masters Shields, all four Majors (obviously) and three or four lower ranked tournies (and I’m more than happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, so please do so). Granted, that may not seem a great deal of a sacrifice for having a job that most would kill for, but I don’t see the reason why there can’t be a legitimate compromise between the ITF and the players. It’s not as if these players aren’t putting in the work in the “off-season” and during the tournaments. They’ve worked hard for the titles they’ve won and, as with any competitive human, are full of pride. They put their all into playing to satisfy the masses but also to fill their obligations as ambassadors to the sport, front men for a sport that is truly underrated and underappreciated.

From what I’m reading most just think that the players are nothing more than whining, money-hungry “wusses” (which I assume is the popular turn of phrase for the players). However, I think the better description is tired and pissy. Not completely surprising given the tension at the tail end of the US Open. But, as I said, it’s not as if they just show up and win. They earn their wins and take pride in knowing that they had to fight for it.

They’ve fought in the past for scheduling compromises and “won”, getting DC shifted a bit from previous years. But is it really a huge deal if they’re allotted a bit more time in the off-season after the DC final, really? I mean are they really asking too much for some leeway in terms of how much time they get off after the official season has ended to spend time with their families or just do whatever they want? Many mention Roger Federer and how he’s not complaining, but really…he’s one guy who’s stood at the front line of this issue before and though may not be saying anything to ruffle feathers or warrant the attacks that (mostly) Murray is getting, don’t think he doesn’t support his fellow players. Novak completely supported the players at the US Open and he won the thing. He continues to support the players as he gets over his physical issues.

If it’s truly about them not getting anymore money, then don’t give it to them. Really, this is something that can be solved quickly and without squabbles. They just want some time off, so why not give it to them and not worry about upping the prize money (and adversely, the ticket prices) every year? There doesn’t seem to be a hell of a lot of complaint as regards their paycheques. They’re not even really thinking about it. It almost seems like a pacifying tactic: we’ll give them more money and they’ll just shut up about it. These cats are only human and a big paycheque is appealing, but when that’s not the issue at hand, I’m sure they’d be more than happy to let go of some of it just to be able to play at their best.

But really this “comment” is more of a question. I want to know a) why it’s so hard to get anything actually changed for the better for both parties and b) why people have a problem with players speaking up (I’d like it if the answers were mature, if you please)? I want to get down to the nitty-gritty and understand what’s really going on here. Why has this been an issue since the 80s?

September 27th, 2011 at 1:15 pm

I’m not cynical enough to think that the players want fewer mandatory tourneys so that they could have more time for non-mandatory ones with appearance fees. Not buying it. The ones who could actually merit those fees have more money than they can spend. The others need more tourneys to make their $.
The top guys just want rest and to not have to slip behind in the tight race to get it. They are the ones who are going deep in the tourney anyway.
But, it’s a good point about the strings Cindy. With his strings and long point grinding style, its no wonder rafa has the louder voice in this matter. Murray not far behind with no killer weapon and often playing longer defensive points. Fed for the most part has kept his two cents to the super Saturday issue and is known for keeping his points and matches short
So, which masters event could get demoted?
Votes, guys?
I feel they have it pared down just right, and can’t imagine any of the remaining no longer mandatory. Knee jerk reaction is Rogers cup or cincy, though these combine e

September 27th, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Whoops…combined events are not likely to be changed. Oh well, I guess it just goes back to who can hack it and keep healthy through all the gruel.

September 27th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

dari, My vote goes to Bercy, i say downgrade it to a 500. That tourney really is unecessary, why have a Master 1000 at the end of the season right before the WTFs? The stands r pretty empty during the week and Paris already has RG.

September 27th, 2011 at 5:42 pm

LW, I also thought about bercy, but indoor gets no love as it is, so I let that one slide. Seems right choice though.
It will be some time before a decision has to be made, if at all.
I am glad to hear the guys speak up, though, they certainly deserve to be heard. I don’t think they will get that far, but I hope there is no strike with a complete shut down of the tour. I turned my nose up at US football and basketball for their strikes

September 27th, 2011 at 6:30 pm

I agree, Paris is the one that should be. Takuing them one by one

Indian Wells-large draw, big prize money, combined event=no way

Miami–don’t even go there. I would kill but see same as Indian Wells.

Both the above events are played over two weeks with rest days in between a lot too. Most players don’t complain about these,

Montecarlo—already downgraded to optional, rich with history and tradition though. Could be a 500. But a lot of players miss it anyway.

Rome-too much history, really most important event in Italy. Can’t touch it.

Madrid—hmmmmmm. The spaniards would have a cow, or una vaca. Already have a 500 in Barcelona. And as Montecarlo was downgraded see no need to only have one mandatory masters. So there should be two. So it stays.

Rogers Cup–Only real tennis event in Canada.

CIncinatti–Could go. Already two other masters plus GS in the US. Plus Rafa never does well there. Put it as a 500 and most players will probably opt in anyway to prep for USO?

Shainghai–Important for tennis to be global.

Paris–I go with this one or CIncinatti. Paris already has RG, the stands are empty, and again Rafa never plays well here :)

September 27th, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Good reasoning Kimberly, I’d go along with your list.

September 27th, 2011 at 10:44 pm

My suggestion is, re-site all tournaments to Glasgow…;)

September 28th, 2011 at 1:42 am

^^

Are you a Murray fan or his enemy? The poor chap will surely collapse under such monumental pressure;)

September 29th, 2011 at 11:50 am

rogerafa: au contraire, Andy plays exceptionally well in his homeland surrounded by non-critical adoring fans :) Did you not see him well up after a brilliant Davis Cup performance?

September 29th, 2011 at 11:55 am

@margot

Your optimism is infectious but slams and other big events are slightly different proposition compared to feeble DC foes. The English media will probably set a permanent base in Glasgow specifically to hound him all year:( Have mercy:)

September 29th, 2011 at 12:23 pm