Davydenko hits out at Federer

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/australian-open-2012/top-stories/Davydenko-weighs-in-on-perfect-Federer/articleshow/11508737.cms

Russian tennis player Mr.Davydenko has launched a scathing attack on Swiss tennis star Roger Federer today accusing him of 'not supporting the players'. This comes a day after Rafael Nadal also hit out at the way Federer has said nothing to gain good PR, while the rest of the ATP suffer from overload and injuries. Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Davydenko and Bogomolov Jnr have all spoken out against the length of the tour publicly, but it is reported that many many other players are disgruntled behind the scenes. Federer himself has said that 'there are a lot of issues that need to be improved,' but he has not been vocal enough for many in enforcing change for the better in the ATP tour.
What do you think?

"I don't know why Roger doesn't support players. I don't know why. Because he doesn't do any problems. He's a nice guy," the Russian said.

"He's from Switzerland. He's perfect. He don't want to do anything. He just tried to be outside from this one," he added.

"But he was sitting in the (players') meeting (on Saturday). He just listened to everything and I think Sunday was meeting the top four guys. I don't know what happened there."

"For sure Federer doesn't want to do anything because he doesn't want to make any strike or something. Nadal, Djokovic is with the other players, the top 100 players,"

"The Russian said he did not support the idea of a shorter season"
So he doesn't back Nadal - perhaps a change of thread title is in order?

He is never quoted as saying that Julius.

amritia3ee wrote:He is never quoted as saying that Julius.

It says it in the article - you think they just made it up?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:He is never quoted as saying that Julius.

It says it in the article - you think they just made it up?

I want an exact quote.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:He is never quoted as saying that Julius.

It says it in the article - you think they just made it up?

I want an exact quote.

Why, because you think they made it up?

Julius you are getting this wrong. It's not one player backing the other or not. There clearer is a case Federer is doing nothing as president because he wants his perfect image. There are various problems.

Simple_Analyst wrote:It's not one player backing the other or not.

Then why does the topic say "Davydenko backs Nadal" when Davydenko doesn't back Nadal?

Report in the Washington Post from the AP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/tennis/nikolay-davydenko-baffled-by-roger-federers-reticence-on-players-complaints-about-tour/2012/01/16/gIQAkqtT2P_story.html

The Russian said he did not support the idea of a shorter season, a change that is backed by Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, but he agrees that prize money has not increased in line with growing profits at Grand Slam tournaments.

Prize money is also an issue at the Indian Wells tournament, where Davydenko said those players who lose in the first round can sometimes make a loss after paying tax and travel costs to contest the
tournament.

The precise issues are important because some issues may cut against one another and be championed by different players and if that's the case the head of the council may need time to work out which he should support for the wider benefit.

amritia3ee wrote:"But he was sitting in the (players') meeting (on Saturday). He just listened to everything and I think Sunday was meeting the top four guys. I don't know what happened there."

Do you? Find a newspaper quote for that one?

Yes Julius but doesn't hide the fact Federer is campaigning for his own interest alone.

“Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions.”

From Barrystar's link.

Even from the calls for a shorter season has been to have a reduction in the number of mandatory events. This clearly does not mean lower earning potential for lower ranked players as they can still enter those tournaments.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes Julius but doesn't hide the fact Federer is campaigning for his own interest alone.

In what way is he 'campaigning' - by not saying anything? That's a pretty unusual campaign approach.
Prize money seems to be a big issue with the players, especially the lower ranked ones (inc. Davy). I doubt Fed has any self-interest in that. Yet he hasn't said anything about it. Sticking up for lower ranked players in public would undoubtedly enhance his image, yet he's said nothing.
Maybe he's taking the issue of prize money seriously. Maybe he's talking out of the public eye and trying to come up with an answer before speaking publicly about it. Maybe he's putting the problem before his image.
Maybe he just wants to concentrate on the AO and sort it out after that.
Or maybe he's a monster and we should all burn him at the stake at the first opportunity!

Where is the article with Djokovic's statements on Federer? Should there not be another one from Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, .... ?

I agree there is a big discrepancy between Tennis and Golf in terms of price money. But that is down to the sponsors who have a much more lucrative market with golfers.

How to increase teh money for the first round? not easy considering the little interest teh public has at large in the first rounds.

Well apparently he wants players to keep their opinions to themselves. Perhaps he should buy them a duct tape?

Is this translated from the Russian?

It seems the issue is distribution of prize money - it is too top loaded meaning that the players losing in the first few rounds make a loss, while those at the top become multi-millionaires.

ps: I wonder whether this might be one of the reasons why there is such a gap between the top players and those below them (less and less upsets, less and less teenagers breaking into the scene).

Simple_Analyst wrote:Even from the calls for a shorter season has been to have a reduction in the number of mandatory events. This clearly does not mean lower earning potential for lower ranked players as they can still enter those tournaments.

Current Top 100 and number of tournaments played.

Most Tournies played....

Rank Name Tournaments

84 Paire, Benoit (FRA) 36
45 Andujar, Pablo (ESP) 33
72 Volandri, Filippo (ITA) 33
98 Kamke, Tobias (GER) 33
34 Bogomolov Jr., Alex (RUS) 32
47 Fognini, Fabio (ITA) 32
61 Berlocq, Carlos (ARG) 32
67 Ramos, Albert (ESP) 32
88 Riba, Pere (ESP) 32
70 Machado, Rui (POR) 31
93 Beck, Andreas (GER) 31
66 Garcia-Lopez, Guillermo (ESP) 30
69 Rosol, Lukas (CZE) 30
76 Cipolla, Flavio (ITA) 30
91 Mannarino, Adrian (FRA) 30
96 Prodon, Eric (FRA) 30
97 Russell, Michael (USA) 30
13 Dolgopolov, Alexandr (UKR) 29
62 Starace, Potito (ITA) 29


Top 10 players...

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 20
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 19
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 20
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 23
6 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 25
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 23
8 Fish, Mardy (USA) 23
9 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB) 28
10 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP) 28


We need to ask Paire how he makes a living?

Nore Staat wrote:Is this translated from the Russian?

It seems the issue is distribution of prize money - it is too top loaded meaning that the players losing in the first few rounds make a loss.

Yes but I suspect teh tournaments make also a loss as well in those first rounds. They would rather have only quarter finals onwards...like they did in the US 60s/70s and around teh world for that matter.

Not easy!

So...

Federer campaigns without speaking.
Davydenko supports Nadal by disagreeing with him.

Yes folks, welcome to the World of amrit and his master, Simplistic, for whom anything spun against Federer is good.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Even from the calls for a shorter season has been to have a reduction in the number of mandatory events. This clearly does not mean lower earning potential for lower ranked players as they can still enter those tournaments.

If I am putting up cash for an event I want to know who is playing. Mandatory events were a way of making sure that sponsors could expect to pay top bucks for top players. If you reduce their number you cannot expect sponsors to pay the same amount so lower-ranked participants lose out.

That's the thing with the tour - pull a thread in one place and you don't know what unravels elsewhere.

barrystar wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Even from the calls for a shorter season has been to have a reduction in the number of mandatory events. This clearly does not mean lower earning potential for lower ranked players as they can still enter those tournaments.

If I am putting up cash for an event I want to know who is playing. Mandatory events were a way of making sure that sponsors could expect to pay top bucks for top players. If you reduce their number you cannot expect sponsors to pay the same amount so lower-ranked participants lose out.

That's the thing with the tour - pull a thread in one place and you don't know what unravels elsewhere.

That you've had to spell that out makes me despair...... :facepalm:

Barrystar still doesn't mean the event will be without money and players won't get paid or even attend. There are alot of tournaments the tours superstars don't attend but they do just fine. Is Monte Carlo not running just fine?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Barrystar still doesn't mean the event will be without money and players won't get paid or even attend. There are alot of tournaments the tours super tars don't attend but they do just fine. Is Monte not running just fine?

MC is in year 2-3 of a new experiment, it is a very old tournament with a lot of cache in a popular location and still has 1,000 points to dole out to players as well as falling at a good point in the season for those wishing to find their clay legs. Nadal has won it for 7 years in a row so if he carries on winning it for the next couple of years at one level we don't see a huge amount of change - although to my mind over the last two years it has undoubtedly been a lesser tournament than it was in, say, 2007-2009. Wait for 3-4 years until Nadal stops being a force to be reckoned with on clay and see who participates and wins. Even if it is doing fine just now we cannot be sure that it forms a blue-print for maintaining decent sponsorship in bigger tournaments for the wider tour in the future.

One trouble is that tournaments which cannot guarantee the top players tend to use up valuable resources paying them to attend - that is not a blueprint for the future.

Barry star but making 2 or 3 more Non-Masters mandatory will also see them maintain their 1000 points. Mandatory does not mean losing it's status as a masters event. It just gives players a personal decision whether to attend or not and this can ease up their schedule a little. I remembered in 2010 Federer played quite a few non mandatory 250 events so players are likely to still play in those tournaments.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Barry star but making 2 or 3 more Masters mandatory will also see them maintain their 1000 points. Mandatory does not mean losing it's status as a masters event. It just gives players a personal decision whether to attend or not and this can ease up their schedule a little. I remembered in 2010 Federer played quite a few non mandatory 250 events so players are likely to still play in those tournaments.

I think you mean non-mandatory. Put yourself on the seat of the board of, say, Rolex. If the ATP come begging and they say Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray may play you are going to pay them less than if they say that quartet will play.

It's a balance - the ATP want to maximise money coming in but not to over-stretch the resources they have (players). There's no one answer that will be agreeable to everyone.

If there's no agreement on that we are stuck for something to talk about.

Davydenko wants more money for the 1st rounders cause he has lost in teh first round.

Joke aside, this is sad as I wanted him to do well.

Tenez wrote:Davydenko wants more money for the 1st rounders cause he has lost in teh first round.

Joke aside, this is sad as I wanted him to do well.

Me too - he was drawn to play Nadal and their's is an interesting rivalry. I think it was such a shame that what could have been the best part of his career in the aftermath of his 2009 WTF win was struck down by injury.

Injury on one side and still no sponsor from his favourite racquet supplier Prince. He changed to Donnay or Dunlop and never got used to it. I still think he has it in him to find his edge.

His game is so dependant on finding his rhythmand have everything clicking, it's going to be hard work.

Barrystar makes a good point about the sponsorship but I don't see it as an absolute one. Why not draw up a deal with the sponsors that says for example $1,000,000 with penalty deductions. Maybe you lose 5% if Federer/Nadal/Djokovic don't turn up at all (5% for each). That would be fair and that would be the model perhaps for masters 1000s if not mandatory.

Alternatively, the sponsors calculate the appearance rate of top players on past history, forecast it and take a calculated risk. The variation from the mean tends not to be colossal in most cases.

I think ranking points for the winner at a given tournament could be distributed based on formulae accounting for various factors such as stadium size, facilities, history, ranking of players attending and ranking of players winning the events. Tournaments should have to all attract players on their merits, none compulsory, and might be able to go up or down from 250/500/1000 depending on how they do. Although 250/500/1000 I also think is too big a difference. I would prefer 250/400/700/1000 or 250/400/600/800/1000. The current system has resulted some oddities like Doha and Queens being worth the same as tiny tournaments and Dubai worth the same as Memphis.

Also, allowing ranking points to be determined by a formula allows a fair meritocracy to emerge rather than the current system which is who has the fattest wallet or is most in bed with the ATP. A bit like FIFA, you have to be in bed with FIFA to get the world cup. For all I know, it might be the same thing in tennis given the lack of transparency.

Shorter season is the same thing as time wasting between points.

Both the result of Nada's gruelling style. It was not perfect before him but never did we have to write so much about annoying and useless issues.

When Nadal goes down the ranking, everything will settle down.