WTF Exhibition Or Tournament?

Its got the top 8 players. Its built up to be the best of the best. The player who wins supposedly has no easy matches. Loads of ranking points and prize money on offer... But IMO it sometimes appears more like an exhibition.

The matches have the feel of being staged. Public pay by session and just watch 1 singles and 1 doubles. Designed to give maximum profit and guaranteed stars. Round robin format to ensure the big names stay around. Best of 3 sets even in the final - to fit TV schedules. Makeshift courts and dark theatrical staging (This in particular applies to O2). Substitutions are even allowed as its important to put on the scheduled number of "shows".

The WTF is supposed to be a tournament but is it really an exhibition?

Tournament.

If it was an exhibition, there would be no prize money.

hawkeye wrote:Its got the top 8 players. Its built up to be the best of the best. The player who wins supposedly has no easy matches. Loads of ranking points and prize money on offer... But IMO it sometimes appears more like an exhibition.

The matches have the feel of being staged. Public pay by session and just watch 1 singles and 1 doubles. Designed to give maximum profit and guaranteed stars. Round robin format to ensure the big names stay around. Best of 3 sets even in the final - to fit TV schedules. Makeshift courts and dark theatrical staging (This in particular applies to O2). Substitutions are even allowed as its important to put on the scheduled number of "shows".

The WTF is supposed to be a tournament but is it really an exhibition?

Good question. I don't think it's either, but a mix of both. It's an exo because of the unusual RR system, and it's a tournament because everyone wants to win it. Then again, it's incomparable to any other"proper" tournaments as such, so it's a bit weird as well.
the worst bit is it's at the very end of the season, so everyone's in their chill-out gear trying to rev themselves up one last time and that isn't easy for someone like Djokovic or Nadal who have had a long and draining year.

hawkeye wrote:
The matches have the feel of being staged. Public pay by session and just watch 1 singles and 1 doubles. Designed to give maximum profit and guaranteed stars. Round robin format to ensure the big names stay around. Best of 3 sets even in the final - to fit TV schedules. Makeshift courts and dark theatrical staging (This in particular applies to O2). Substitutions are even allowed as its important to put on the scheduled number of "shows".
The WTF is supposed to be a tournament but is it really an exhibition?

No different than any other tournaments if you think about it. We even had RR in tournaments recently to allow more "star matches". Tournments and exhos are all about stars and money. They even slow the conds to make it balanced for the less talented stars.

With 1,500 points at stake for a "complete" victory, this is anything but an exhibition. A good showing here can set a player up with a high ranking for most of the following year. Don't think you'll see the players regarding it as an exibition. If you saw the Murray-Rafa semi last year (a terrific, hard-fought match) , it didn't look like they were merely going thru the motions.

Am I right in assuming you will think it is an Exhibition until Rafa wins it?

noleisthebest wrote: the worst bit is it's at the very end of the season, so everyone's in their chill-out gear trying to rev themselves up one last time and that isn't easy for someone like Djokovic or Nadal who have had a long and draining year.

If Nadal isn't up for it that's his own fault - anyway he damn nearly won it last year and he's not to be underestimated. Djoko has managed it before, but this year is an exception and he's a lot to get used to, so we can cut him some slack. It's worth remembering that TMF has won it at the end of 90+ match years twice.

Both men and the tennis authorities need to look at what a year like this one is doing to the players and take some steps to speed the game up a little bit here and there. Everywhere you look there are signs that things are unsustainable.

I like teh fact it is being played at the end of the season when everybody is tired. Though I disagree they all are actually tired. Nadal had a good rest last year and even more so this year. Djoko hasn't done much since the USO, so they have no reasons to be tired. Matches of Spring are not in their legs anymore!. They may not value it much, but us fans have always enjoyed it (I think I can talk for many here).

Last year Federer won it at 29, after having played Stochholm, Basel and Paris in full (bar one match) and in succession. He certainly had reasons to be tired but he still arrived in final fresher (despite having played 14 extra matches than Nadal in the last 4 weeks) cause his tennis was sublime.

This is why Becker calls teh masters a "quality" tournament as opposed to slams where stamina over 5 sets plays a bigger role.

I do think at the back end of the season what I'd call "short-term tiredness" plays a role. Players tend to take longer to recover, and the guy who's played a three-hour gruelling match the previous day will struggle to cope with the guy who had a day off (Murray-Davydenko semi-final 08 I think for instance).

This ain't no exhibition.

I think hawkeye you're confusing two different issues (whether or not intentionally, with a hidden agenda in mind as one poster hints .... only you know the truth on that)

The fact that the tournament is understandably presented and staged as a 'theatrical spectacle' with the watching audience - both live and worldwide tv - in mind does nothing to detract from the obvious determination of the players, not only to qualify for WTF in the first place but then to perform well once there. Why else would guys in the top 12 (-ish) band spend such a big chunk of the season talking of of their prospects for making it to London ......?

I was fortunate to attend one day last year and, although only an RR day, there was no doubting that this was serious stuff. And as for the Final itself ....... if you saw the intense look in Rafa's eyes as he came on to court for the start, like some prize-fighter, well I don't know how the word exhibition could come to mind .......

Yes I agree with lags.

Rafa has taken out six weeks with the stated goal of preparing for the WTF. He did something similar last year. He has absolutely no reason to be feeling physically or mentally tired. He wants this badly. As Tenez stated, they won't be feeling the matches they played in spring in their legs six months later.

After all, 6 weeks is longer than the break after the WTF until the next season!

As for theatrical lighting and music, that's just standard fare at indoor tourneys. You may have noticed it in Paris and Basel.



emancipator

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I do think at the back end of the season what I'd call "short-term tiredness" plays a role. Players tend to take longer to recover, and the guy who's played a three-hour gruelling match the previous day will struggle to cope with the guy who had a day off (Murray-Davydenko semi-final 08 I think for instance).

It's in the mind really cause they have no reason to be more tired at the end of the season than in March before the US HC tour or before Montreal. They take break 5 to 6 weeks on those 3 occasions.

If anything they shoudl be at their best form now cause they have played (In nadal's case for instance) since he has played only 7 matches in the last 10 weeks! and only played 11 matches in the previous 9 weeks (including 2 easy cake walks v Gasquet and Tsonga on clay).

That's why I don;t beleive in that end of season tiredness. I cannot see how the 5 weeks after WTF are going to be more beneficial that the 5 weeks after the AO, or after Wimbledon.

Tenez wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I do think at the back end of the season what I'd call "short-term tiredness" plays a role. Players tend to take longer to recover, and the guy who's played a three-hour gruelling match the previous day will struggle to cope with the guy who had a day off (Murray-Davydenko semi-final 08 I think for instance).

It's in the mind really cause they have no reason to be more tired at the end of the season than in March before the US HC tour or before Montreal. They take break 5 to 6 weeks on those 3 occasions.

If anything they shoudl be at their best form now cause they have played (In nadal's case for instance) since he has played only 7 matches in the last 10 weeks! and only played 11 matches in the previous 9 weeks (including 2 easy cake walks v Gasquet and Tsonga on clay).

That's why I don;t beleive in that end of season tiredness. I cannot see how the 5 weeks after WTF are going to be more beneficial that the 5 weeks after the AO, or after Wimbledon.

I think it's more of mental fatigue after a long season of time zones and hotel rooms, just that final push for something that is not a slam but brings a lot of cash and a lot of points.
For the players who won a slam, it must be a drag, for those who haven't, esp the lower ranked 4, it's a privilege and prestige kind of thing and they put in the best effort which probably won't help this year.

How do you get "prepared" for WTF compared to preparation for a slam?
Probably the same as for any Masters 1000 tournament.

WTF is in this limbo in quite a few ways.

You only need to look at the list of finals and winners to see what a prestigious tournament the WTF has been and remains. Anyone would rather win a slam for sure, but I'd put the WTF next in line by a clear head because of the difficulty of qualifying and, perhaps more to the point, of winning in such a quality field.

I can't help wondering if nitb would be posting in this way were Djoko recovered and raring to go. Of course, Djoko's had a season for the ages, but TMF picked up a Tour Finals win on 3 occasions at the end of a 3-slam season, one of which was also 90+ match season (in addition TMF played 90+ matches and won it in 2003).

Djoko has played 73 matches thus far in 2011 to 71 by the 30-yr old Federer; if Djoko's 24-yr-old body can't hack that schedule he needs to look at what he's doing very carefully in the closed season.

It shoudl not be a mental drag. That's what I don;t like with today's tennis. It's like in cycling. It'a ll about the big event(s) for the top ones.

It's a new phenomenon in sport. Merckx and Indurain were racing close to all year round, Federer was also playing all year round like all his predecessors. It started with Lance concentrating with teh TDF only or maybe another race and then Nadal being a seasonal player and now Djoko. Yet, tehy don;t play more matches than Fed or McEnroe played in their times. So clearly they are approching the game wrongly if they are mentally tired at that time of the year.
For Sampras it was all about slams but it did not prevent him to go to Germany and fight for his Masters.

This is very much related to this extended time between points. They want the rules and the calendar to serve their gruelling tennis style. They don;t want to adapt their tennis to the rules and tennis calendar.

There are loads of ranking points on offer at WTF.

Not just for winning. 1500 for a three set match compared to 2000 for 7 five set matches over 2 weeks in a slam. But also for winning a single match at the group stage. 200 points is a lot of points for beating an injured Fish (Sorry Fish fans...). Poor Federer only got 50 more points for winning 5 tricky matches and picking up the trophy in tricky Doha.

The prize money on offer is also on par with a slam. Given its less matches over a shorter amount of time it probably works out as more.

Anyone would think its more important than a slam...

hawkeye wrote:There are loads of ranking points on offer at WTF.
.........................................................................................
...

Could that be because there are loads of top players there too ?

Or should I say ONLY top players. In fact ONLY the top eight.

No wildcards or 128th ranked entrants here

There is a potential 1500 points for the winner.

That sounds about right considering that masters 1000 tourneys give a guaranteed 1000 points to the champion.

emancipator wrote:There is a potential 1500 points for the winner.

That sounds about right considering that masters 1000 tourneys give a guaranteed 1000 points to the champion.

But what about 200 points for beating an injured Fish (sorry again Fish fans ). Almost the same number of points Federer got for winning an entire tournament. Doha is quite tricky too you should check the draw.

hawkeye wrote:But what about 200 points for beating an injured Fish (sorry again Fish fans ). Almost the same number of points Federer got for winning an entire tournament. Doha is quite tricky too you should check the draw.

Good point actually. Woudl be fairer in my view to give less points in the RRs and more towards the end.

I also raised in old 606 that 2000 for slams was not enough compared to TMS's 1000 points. We know that slams are at least twice as important as TMs for top players. Imagine, what do you think Murray woudl prefer 8 TMS or 4 slams? And this is proven by top players giving 100% for slams and often overlooking TMSs.

I think slams shoudl be at 2500pt, teh masters at 2000 and the TMS at 1000.

Hawkeye,

We don't know how injured Fish will be, he may be fine.

In any case it's not 200 points for beating an injured Fish, it's 200 points for winning a RR match. Those points were allotted before Fish became injured, in other words one cannot see the future and predict the likely hood of injury to a particular player.

Besides, players also get injured in 250's, 500's, 1000's, slams etc. The winner still gets the points allocated.

My question to Op is that Has he/she ever been there? It is an electric atmosphere. I went there last year and it is an expereince not to be missed.

wow wrote:My question to Op is that Has he/she ever been there? It is an electric atmosphere. I went there last year and it is an expereince not to be missed.

Erm..I wouldn't call that electric experience....pretty flat, actually, annoyingly flat! The real fans were scattered around the arena, majority were just happy to be there and give a polite clap at the end. I am not a number one Fed fan, but made sure I gave him standing ovation, unlike the three American "FED fans" who were sitting next to me, who couldn't wait to get out of the place...

noleisthebest wrote:

wow wrote:My question to Op is that Has he/she ever been there? It is an electric atmosphere. I went there last year and it is an expereince not to be missed.

Erm..I wouldn't call that electric experience....pretty flat, actually, annoyingly flat! The real fans were scattered around the arena, majority were just happy to be there and give a polite clap at the end. I am not a number one Fed fan, but made sure I gave him standing ovation, unlike the three American "FED fans" who were sitting next to me, who couldn't wait to get out of the place...

mY question to nitb, are u this fussy with other things as well.

I quite enjoyed it and atmosphere was great, it was a packed arena

noleisthebest wrote:

wow wrote:My question to Op is that Has he/she ever been there? It is an electric atmosphere. I went there last year and it is an expereince not to be missed.

Erm..I wouldn't call that electric experience....pretty flat, actually, annoyingly flat! The real fans were scattered around the arena, majority were just happy to be there and give a polite clap at the end. I am not a number one Fed fan, but made sure I gave him standing ovation, unlike the three American "FED fans" who were sitting next to me, who couldn't wait to get out of the place...

No I havn't been. Despite it being in this country I imagine the experience might be a bit like noleisthebest described. Will watch it on TV and not worry about rubbish view or buying a dud session or have to make the choice between leaving before a match has finished or sleeping on the O2 floor... Wimbledon now thats another thing.

If anyones got some good tickets for the final though I wouldn't mind testing it out...

I agree with NITB about the atmosphere. I watched teh Davydenko/Delpo final so that maybe why but there are lots of lighting effects with flashes going everywhere but no much tension or high emotions going on.

I guess that's simply tennis and not football.

On further reflection I can see that 200 points is maybe a lot for one RR win (any talk of injury, perceived or otherwise is irrelevant, the same can happen in any tournament)

I'd add that maybe the Final should perhaps be switched to a five-setter (was this not the case in years past ...??)

But I keep coming back to the point that ONLY the top eight start so there are no early round warm-ups like in a Slam or even TMS. Slams are ultra-tough, for sure, and will always remain the benchmark. BUT the vagaries of a Slam draw can result in some odd happenings .....

Consider this : looking back to 2003, a Slam has been won on 12 separate occasions where the eventual champion managed to get through the entire fortnight having met only ONE top ten player en route to success. One Slam, A0 2003, was won without the champ (Agassi) having to meet even a single top 10 guy. Obviously that can never happen at the WTF and on that basis alone I say the 1500 title points are about right.