After last week’s Championships in Madrid, the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour officials met for a season-ending board meeting to discuss the ongoing problem of player withdrawals and injuries.
Based upon that meeting yesterday in Madrid, the WTA Tour has just published a press release detailing the changes that will be implemented for the 2007 tennis season. Most of these are pretty straight-forward plans for improvements, but one of them, the possibility of legalizing coaching from the stands, is somewhat disturbing.
“Reduction of top player minimum tournament commitment requirement from 13 to 12 events, including two events to be chosen by the Tour for each player”
Larry Scott, the Tour CEO, started campaigning for this change back in October and I’m glad to see that the board has agreed with him. Of course, if you include Fed Cup, which many of players will be competing in next season because of the Olympic eligibility rules, and the four Grand Slams, this still adds up to a possibility of seventeen events per year. Also, part of Roadmap 2010 2009′s goals is to reduce this number down to 11 required events. Another interesting development is the inclusion that two of these twelve events will be chosen by the Tour for each player. I wonder what the tournament directors roles will be in this decision?
“New standards that will mandate that all Tour fall season events shall utilize the same surface and same ball”
I’m all for changes that will help lessen chances of the players getting injured, and the indoor season has been a source of irritation to many of the women because of the difference between the speed of the courts and weight of the tennis balls. This is obviously going to cost the fall tournaments more money to change/regulate the surfaces, but it may cut down on the amount of shoulder and wrist injuries that we see toward the end of each season. Of course, the biggest and hardest surface change is in the spring – the two weeks between Roland Garros and Wimbledon.
“Doubling of player late withdrawal fines, up to a maximum of $40,000 for third and subsequent late withdrawal offenses”
Very noble gesture – but does anyone actually believe that this will cut down on player withdrawals? Even $40,000 is pocket change for the players that are the most guilty of pulling out at a moment’s notice.
“Reduction of minimum player tournament commitment requirement for players who have been on the Tour for 12 years or more by one tournament”
Once players start getting in their late-twenties to early thirties the wear-and-tear on their bodies only increases. They still believe that they can bring their best tennis onto the court, but playing seventeen to twenty tournaments a year is more than they can handle. They did their time, back when they were up-and-coming teenagers on the Tour, and it makes perfect sense to give them a break now that they are starting to feel their age.
“Option for players aged 30 years old or more (as of January 1 of the Tour year) to have their minimum tournament commitment consist of only four Tier I events.”
Okay, but this rule just screams Lindsay Davenport. Seriously, I have nothing against Lindsay and as far as I’m concerned she could play until she’s 90 and I’ll still be cheering for her with my cane, but we all know that they did not make this rule with Jill Craybas, Ai Sugiyama, or Elena Likhovtseva in mind. It is a possibility that Mary Pierce came under consideration, but she’s out for at least six months, if not permanently. Maybe the Tour knows something that we do not and Monica Seles or Jennifer Capriati might be on the verge of coming out of not-quite-retirement, because this rule would certainly help them out.
I think this rule coincides with the one prior to it, and will help the veterans stay veterans on the Tour, instead of retirees. But, in all honesty, playing Tier I’s is not a problem for most of the older players besides Davenport, as their chances of making it past the first couple of rounds are pretty slim. After all, a loss in the third round of a Tier I still equals one of the best paydays of the year.
“In light of the positive feedback from fans, broadcasters and others, and in recognition of the difficulty in policing coaching from the stands, the Tour also intends to put forth a proposal in the coming months to legalize coaching from the stands, subject to important parameters that would ensure no disruption or interference with play.”
I have been a staunch opponent of on-court coaching from the beginning with the rationale that singles tennis is not a team sport. It’s two individuals on the court, playing with two racquets, and using one ball. There should be no “we” when discussing a loss, just “I”. If a player is not smart enough to realize that most of her opponent’s errors are coming from her backhand, and she keeps feeding her forehand shots, she should not get the benefit of having a coach come out and tell her what to change. Tennis is just as much mental as it is physical, and I believe that we would see more solid players on the Tour if they would incorporate more mental preparation into their training regimes.
Now, the latest thing to come from the Tour regarding coaching is the possibility of the Tour legalizing coaching from the stands. You know that old saying, you give them an inch and they take a mile, well, it applies to on-court coaching perfectly. It used to be that coaching was illegal in singles matches, then because they claimed it was going on anyway, the Tour decided to make it legal at a few tournaments this season – but only during certain moments during the match. Now, using the same old premise that it’s happening anyway, they are moving forward with a proposal to make coaching legal from the stands, as long as it does not interfere or disrupt the match. Pardon me, but would this not be considered “interference”?
“The testing of no-ad scoring with a 10-point “Super-Tiebreak” in lieu of a third set, to be trialed at the Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells and the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, among other tournaments, in 2007.”
This is the one change that I’ve not heard much about in the past few months. It was initially implemented without fan-fare, and hardly any of the players have mentioned it, apart from Kveta Peschke in this WTA press release. Only time will tell if this is a positive change, but I just hope that the WTA learned one thing from the ATP – be careful when you start messing with the doubles players.
Aaress – please don’t be disheartened at the lack of response to this and other posts. It’s not a lack of interest (or lack of appreciation for your sterling efforts!) but it may be a kind of despair and apathy toward the Tour. Sort of “What are they going to do next?”
Some of the suggestions are common sense and long overdue, and some of the other things (allowing off-court coaching, killing womens’ doubles to match the mens’) are just depressing.
I’m gonna go back to sulking, now. :(