#you dont have to beg top players to show up to 500s. they will come if the tournament is seen as valuable
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
rolandkaros · 1 month ago
Note
i think the thing that’s silliest about the mandatory 0 rule is how it replaces your worst result- so since iga didn’t lose r1 in any tournaments she did play, she’s losing more points than aryna who lost her first match in dubai. obviously it’s not “unfair” because the players know, it is what it is, but i just think that if the rule rewards or incentivizes (for lack of a better word) tanking… it’s not a good rule. i hope next year they make the requirement 3 or 4 500s because 6 is just absurd for top players who go deep in 1000s and slams lol
I don't think it incentivizes tanking though because the ideal is to not drop any of the 1000 tournaments...if a player doesn't get any mandatory zeros then they hypothetically get to include all of their 1000 results, where it's a lot easier to earn more points than in the 500s. Plus, if Iga had tanked in Miami for example and only gotten 10 points, she still would have lost those 10 points, and ended up at the same point total she's at now – it only seems like she's lost more than Aryna because they've only just now decided to apply the mandatory zeros.
I also think we're not taking into account the fact that these calculations are all made in hindsight. No high-level player is going to roll up to a 1000 tournament and decide to tank for the purpose of having a smaller point total to drop, because a) they're probably not aiming to have any mandatory zeros anyway, and b) they'd much rather replace their current lowest point gain. Aryna was only able to drop Dubai because she performed better in later 1000s. If she had lost first round of Wuhan, for example, she would have had to count one of those +10 values. So, I understand the thought process but I don't think that's actually an issue in practice. The players who actually need to worry about mandatory zeros are never going to settle for early exits anyway.
But I 100% agree, 6 500s is too many, especially considering the 1000s are all mandatory now. Even just the placement of the 500s in the schedule makes it difficult to fit 6 in – players are being forced to commit themselves to long stretches of back to back to back to back tournaments. I think it's also even harder for Iga because it was an Olympic year, so no chance of making DC (and ended up missing Canada as well).
But on a much more serious level I think it's just the scheduling issues, again and again and again. The season is too long, 10 mandatory 1000s and 6 mandatory 500s is ridiculous, the way that the mandatory zeros were applied was weird.
#idk. does this make sense?#like i get you‚ it feels unfair#but those points were technically not even supposed to be counted anyway#honestly i don't see the point in having any mandatory 500s. like keep the 1000s mandatory sure. and keep the rank total at 18 tournaments#players are going to go to 500s anyway and if they don't then it's their loss? they wont improve their ranking?#like the player is the one suffering most from not playing 500s because they have less tournaments to add to their point total#i understand they want to make sure that there are actually good draws with top players for 500 tournaments#but realistically youre going to get better draws if you reduce the number of them total???#because again im assuming most top players would rather play 500s rather than 250s since it contributes so much more to point total#but when you have like 50 million 500 events throughout the year then players are spreading out over all of those draws#i mean what is even the point of having two 500s in one week like with eastbourne and bag homburg? you're guaranteeing to split the field#if you pick and choose which tournaments get that status you increase the chance of that tournament actually drawing players in#take stuttgart for example. and charleston too.#you dont have to beg top players to show up to 500s. they will come if the tournament is seen as valuable#and it's hard for a tournament to seem valuable when it's one of like 50 million others AND back to back to back#idk this is maybe a separate conversation but i just think the wta got it all wrong with the 500s
5 notes · View notes