What The 72nd Ranked Player Says

We're always hearing what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have to say (Murray has a lot to say too... ) but we don't often get to hear what an elite player ranked a little lower thinks about some of the talking points in todays tennis.

From a very interesting interview with Sergiy Stakhovsky (rank 72)

Talking about the difference in earnings between players at the very top and the rest

"And the higher-ranked players can afford themselves everything they need – a coach, a fitness trainer or a physiotherapist. However, the majority of players, who are just trying to make the top-100, don’t have that possibility.

I’m in the negative after the IW and Miami Masters. About five thousand [Note: probably $US, but it’s not definite – Anna]. And that’s while reaching the second round
in Indian Wells."

Getting the best court speed.

"Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours."

What Stathovsky thinks of Djokovics style of play

"That’s an example of systematic percentage tennis – a game without errors. Djokovic, in fact, is playing like a wall.
He just does on the court whatever allows him to win. You won’t earn more by playing a beautiful game."


Federer or Nadal?

"Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field. One reached success through hard work; the other achieved more, while spending less efforts."

Federer and Nadal on the player council

"He’s a good person (Federer), but too neutral for my taste. He’s too Swiss. He wants to keep out of any bad stories too much. When players want to change something, he looks at it too passively, because it can harm his image.



I respect Nadal more in that context, because he openly supports the players’ interests."

On why he thought Nadal left the player council

"In fact, Nadal didn’t leave because of Federer, and the players’ council, for the most part, doesn’t decide anything. It’s a consulting body. But there are three people who represent the players in the ATP. And Rafa thought that they didn’t defend the players’ interests in the extent that they should. And about certain things, I’m prepared to agree with him."

http://letsecondserve.blogspot.ca/2012/04/translated-interview-with-sergiy.html?m=1

It's an interesting interview. I've just picked out a few things but it's worth reading the whole thing...

Have just noticed. I have a random selection of text size in this article for some reason. Have no time to figure out how to fix it now...

Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours.

Still think it was a classic Hawky?

Everyone learns from Federer. In 2006-2008, Roger moved tennis in an absolutely different direction. He played so quickly that everyone followed him. But then the slowing down of courts started.

He wasn’t offended by Federer, exactly. He was disappointed that his ideas – useful for the tour, as he thinks – aren’t heard. It concerns the 2-year ranking, among others. But if you start that, then every player needs to vote, and that’s not entirely correct. Look: in today’s pay for tennis players’ efforts, I personally support this new change. It protects my ranking. The earnings of most players are, really, laughable.

Clearly highlights the reason he wants protected ranking. Personal greed. Disgraceful.

I respect Nadal more in that context, because he openly supports the players’ interests.

He means his own interests. Is the 72nd ranked player the new voice of mens tennis?

Overall for me it was a crap article. He can moan about his expenses. If he wants more, improve!!

He was ranked in the 30's before lk

it seems many players have the same conclusion about Fed in the council these days, unwilling to air strong views in public that could make him unpopular with sponsors, the system does feel a bit too lopsided towards the winning players.

I find it amusing that he moans about the tour, yet has $2M in earnings. The way he was moaning was if he had spent nearly $1M on travelling expenses!! Has he not been so kind as to mention the free equipment his sponsors provide?

Tennis does have a view now of being a gamblers sport much like poker, so I can see why there is a lack of good youngsters coming up. I would guess where Stakhovsky lives the cost of living is quite high, and if it wasnt for these lower ranked players the ATP wouldnt even exist.

There are so many other lowly ranked players, those who earn less than Sergi himself. I would like to hear their views.

That was a really interesting read, thanks hawkeye!

hawkeye wrote: (Murray has a lot to say too... )

Was the article abut #72 or #4?

What happened to mentioning 'appearance' fees?

Perhaps the 'Tennis Wilderness' article (https://www.606v2.com/t27427-the-loneliest-place-on-earth-tennis-wildnerness) and this should be contrasted.

Good article, nice spot.

I would observe that many people don't understand the difference between making noise and having influence.

legendkillar

Sometimes I think you want to disagree with me just for the sake of it! My favourite match at the AO (by a long way... ) was the Nadal Federer semi. I said so at the time. https://www.606v2.com/t23589-best-match-at-the-australian-open I certainly don't think the final was a classic.

I also agree with his description of Djokovics style of play.

Stakhovski was saying how he thought Nadal supported the players interests. Not just his own. So who's "personal" greed are you referring to?

laverfan

I don't know why you are talking about appearance fees? Stakhovski doesn't mention them and I doubt he recieves much if any at all. I can recommend reading the whole linked article as he talks in depth about the cost of playing and about how it's difficult to break even let alone make a living. Also about how it is a very short career and also a risk that all the training may not even result in any career.

To make his point even clearer he talks about his brother. Despite having a potential to do well in tennis he is going to study at university (either first or instead of pursuing a career in tennis) Also and this is very significant he has this to say (from the same linked article)

"And by the way, if I had kids now, I’d never send them to play tennis."

reckoner and bogbrush

Glad you liked it! I thought it was interesting too...

Hawky,

Did not you post a thread on the lines of "Hand both those players a chair?"

No I don't disagree with you for the sake of it. Did you actually read the quotes I plucked from his piece? I will post it again so you can read it:

He wasn’t offended by Federer, exactly. He was disappointed that his ideas – useful for the tour, as he thinks – aren’t heard. It concerns the 2-year ranking, among others. But if you start that, then every player needs to vote, and that’s not entirely correct. Look: in today’s pay for tennis players’ efforts, I personally support this new change. It protects my ranking. The earnings of most players are, really, laughable.

May that be the last time I repeat myself.

So in that sentence highlighted in bold, is that not him looking out for his own interests? And please don't answer with a question.

When the point was challenged on changes Nadal sought, why did Nadal not address the issue that a protected ranking stiffles any progression by upcoming players and also players who had improved on tour to justify a ranking of say 12 in the world ahead of that player who is injured and may not return to the standard of play of that ranking?

Let's not be so shortsighted. Being ranked 72 in the world is a hardship most players below him would so dearly want and respect.

Legendkillar

Just because I thought both players deserved a chair (not only did they deserve a chair they needed one... ) doesn't mean I thought the match was a "classic"!

Stakhovski agrees with Nadal. Nadal is therefore not out of touch with what lower ranked players want.

Being ranked 72 is better than being ranked lower but it is still an entirely different world than the one inhabited by the top 4 players. As Stakhovski says

"the higher-ranked players can afford themselves everything they need – a coach, a fitness trainer or a physiotherapist. However, the majority of players, who are just trying to make the top-100, don’t have that possibility."

I actually agree with a lot of what Stakhovski has to say. He sounds very level headed and insightful. Far from moaning he sounds like he really enjoys the game but is realistic about the difficulties and risks. It's not often we get to read such a thoughtful interview.

Hawkeye, maybe it would be illuminating to ask what an up and coming player ranked around 100 thinks of two year ranking. That was Federers point, that a guy on the up deserved to see his ranking get a move on and not have a system to preserve the status of a guy living on performances he's no longer capable of.

I truly believe Federer was right on this 100%. It's foul for those at the table to try to frig the rules to keep guys down who are actually better than them.

I think that's lk's point about this player. He's clearly arguing from self interest, not the wider interests of the tour.

Hawky,

Where did I say you thought the match was a classic?

Stakhovski is not the voice for all lower ranked players. Just because he agrees with Nadal does not mean Nadal was on to something. What about the rest of the council that disagreed with the proposals Nadal wanted to bring to the table? I would take the majority voice over some jumped up fall from grace tennis player like Stakhovski.

Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray all had to get where they are without that luxury to begin with. Either you have it or you don't. I found the interview to be quite 'whingey'

He should man up and get on with it for crying out loud!

A good interview.
I didn't think he was moaning, as such, just pointing out that his tennis life-style is very far removed from that of the really top players.

Self-interest when you're scratching to make a decent living (The guy says he's $5K down from IW and Miami) doesn't seem particularly disgraceful to me.
It's like the lower-ranked players saying there should be a more even distribution of prize-money - is that simply disgraceful self-interest?

I'm sure most of the players are self-interested when it comes to that sort of thing. just as e.g. most people prefer tax breaks that benefit themselves instead of other people.

Sure they're lucky to have a job they really like, but it's still a job, and like all of us, would probably prefer to be paid a bit more for it.

As for simply 'getting better' to earn more - maybe, just maybe, he's already as good as he can get.

If someone as lowly ranked as James Ward can get a former cage fighter to help his game prior to his Queens run on less career money than Stakhovsky, then I am sorry he can. He can choose what tournaments he wants to play and even decide what coaching he needs. At 24 he has time on his hands to rectify his situation.

Look at the point LF made on the other thread about the girl who flew 80,000 odd miles for a tournament.

Some grind it out, some complain.

JuliusHMarx wrote:A good interview.
I didn't think he was moaning, as such, just pointing out that his tennis life-style is very far removed from that of the really top players.

Self-interest when you're scratching to make a decent living (The guy says he's $5K down from IW and Miami) doesn't seem particularly disgraceful to me.
It's like the lower-ranked players saying there should be a more even distribution of prize-money - is that simply disgraceful self-interest?

I'm sure most of the players are self-interested when it comes to that sort of thing. just as e.g. most people prefer tax breaks that benefit themselves instead of other people.

Sure they're lucky to have a job they really like, but it's still a job, and like all of us, would probably prefer to be paid a bit more for it.

As for simply 'getting better' to earn more - maybe, just maybe, he's already as good as he can get.

Self interest is fine, so long as its not misrepresented as looking out for others.

Leadership is about working for the greater good. The only voice I've heard on the subject that sounded like leadership was Swiss.

bogbrush

Well next time I meet such a player I will ask. It was hard enough finding Sergiy though so you may have to wait a while...

We don't know what Federer thought or thinks because he hasn't really talked much about these issues. But from what Stakhovsky says it sounds like he agrees with Nadal but doesn't want his name linked to anything publicly. (from the same link)

"Federer says the same, just not in the presence of all the other players. He doesn’t want to speak publicly about certain things."

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A good interview.
I didn't think he was moaning, as such, just pointing out that his tennis life-style is very far removed from that of the really top players.

Self-interest when you're scratching to make a decent living (The guy says he's $5K down from IW and Miami) doesn't seem particularly disgraceful to me.
It's like the lower-ranked players saying there should be a more even distribution of prize-money - is that simply disgraceful self-interest?

I'm sure most of the players are self-interested when it comes to that sort of thing. just as e.g. most people prefer tax breaks that benefit themselves instead of other people.

Sure they're lucky to have a job they really like, but it's still a job, and like all of us, would probably prefer to be paid a bit more for it.

As for simply 'getting better' to earn more - maybe, just maybe, he's already as good as he can get.

Self interest is fine, so long as its not misrepresented as looking out for others.

Leadership is about working for the greater good. The only voice I've heard on the subject that sounded like leadership was Swiss.

bogbrush

What did he say? And how did you get to hear? The main criticism of Federer appears to be that he hasn't said anything publicly.

Wasn't Fed saying that up and coming players would be unfairly disadvantaged by this 2 year malarkey? I assume that's what BB is referring to...

I don't really consider Stakhovsky's comments as 'moaning.' I'd say he's simply trying to give an honest insight into just how different day-to-day life can be in the lower ranks as compared to the top twenty, let alone top five. He's not stupid, he knows how the world of pro tennis works and realises that he is pursuing this career by choice - whether for better or for worse .....

As regards the contrast in respective approaches taken by Fed and Rafa when it comes to 'speaking up' for the players (protected rankings proposal, changes to prize money distribution etc etc ...) : Federer did indeed come in for some criticism for (allegedly !) not speaking out more, and most notably by Rafa himself ; but it's significant that Rafa later expressed regret for airing such remarks in public, and he accepted that Fed was right in keeping these issues to the locker room and the player's council.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/federer-brushes-off-nadal-dig-nadal-regrets-airing-175917664.html

lags72

I think both Federer and Nadal have great respect for each other. I always think the age difference might influence how they see each other.

So Nadal is going to try and be more "Swiss" in future.

Patrick McEnroe reported after the Players meeting at the Australian Open that there was a "backlash" against Nadals proposals among the rank and file players who thought the proposals were selfserving. It's like anything- you can ask 20 guys and get a few that are going to think differently than the others.. Obviously Stakhovsky has his opinoin and it's valid, but all I've seen and heard from the lower ranked players (and it makes common sense) if you knwo the propopsals was they were against the Nadal proposals..

You can't tell me that the lower ranked players want guys like Nadal and Djokovic or Federer to not have to play lower level tournaments. That means less money to the tournamnet, less attendance, and ultimally less prize money for the lower players.. They HAVE to show up for these tournaments and Federer showing up for a Estoril or Rotterdam is the difference between a sellout and a borderline not profitable tournament.
It's all meaningless now anyway, as I beleive, anything he was pushing got shelved.

HE - fair comment, I'm very much inclined to agree.

Part of me that thinks that the very insular and family-orientated camp (or 'bubble' even ...?) in which Rafa spends most of his time has the effect of unduly influencing both his thought process and public comments

By contrast, Federer's background and Swiss culture has made him more reserved and cautious

I'm not sure there's always a clear-cut 'wrong' or 'right' way - these differing styles can each have their pros and cons depending on circumstances .

Good article.

I think Stakhovsky's interview highlights some serious issues, that are affecting middle and low ranking players on the tour. Notably, there is a widening gap between the top guy,s who can afford all the tools, medical science included, to compete, and those who cannot.
It's amazing to realize how even a strong and talented player like Stakhovsky, may still find it hard to get a return from his activity. It is also surprising to see how little players can make by qualifing to major tournaments and by winning the early rounds. This is something that would obviously need to be fixed, but I doubt the players council is the right place to do that.

Also, the appearence fees are a shame and shouldn't exist at all in first instance, another element that rigs the balance in favour of the top guys.

I totally disagree with his upholding of the two years ranking which is clearly a silly idea, whose only purpose is to rise an even bigger barrier to break though for low ranking players.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:A good interview.
I didn't think he was moaning, as such, just pointing out that his tennis life-style is very far removed from that of the really top players.

Self-interest when you're scratching to make a decent living (The guy says he's $5K down from IW and Miami) doesn't seem particularly disgraceful to me.
It's like the lower-ranked players saying there should be a more even distribution of prize-money - is that simply disgraceful self-interest?

I'm sure most of the players are self-interested when it comes to that sort of thing. just as e.g. most people prefer tax breaks that benefit themselves instead of other people.

Sure they're lucky to have a job they really like, but it's still a job, and like all of us, would probably prefer to be paid a bit more for it.

As for simply 'getting better' to earn more - maybe, just maybe, he's already as good as he can get.

Self interest is fine, so long as its not misrepresented as looking out for others.

Leadership is about working for the greater good. The only voice I've heard on the subject that sounded like leadership was Swiss.

bogbrush

What did he say? And how did you get to hear? The main criticism of Federer appears to be that he hasn't said anything publicly.

Here's Federer....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae6G__1XqrQ

Federer does speak, he just doesn't do it loudly. Empty vessels make the most noise.

I do think the tour doesn't do a good enough job of disbursing some of the earnings to the run of the mill tour guy ranked from 20-100. This second 4/5ths of the ATP tour really do struggle to get a good return on the effort that they put into being a top professional. I really do believe that more money should be given for qualifying for the first round and making the second round of the tournaments maybe with some money taken away from the top 4 guys. Already the top guys make much more money in terms of endorsments and would not be seriously hurt by giving up a little bit to the tour regulars. It is a shame that if you are the #72 best tennis player in the world you struggle to make a good living and if you are the 72 best footballer in the world you are a multimillionaire. Now football is a much more revenue generating sport but it would be good if Tennis found a way to compensate the lower ranked guys a bit better. But at the end of the day it always has been and will be a hierarchical sport with the most money going to the best guys. Still it would be nice if they shifted by a few points the percentages of prize money so more quality mid ranked guys could stick around for longer.

hawkeye wrote:I don't know why you are talking about appearance fees? Stakhovski doesn't mention them and I doubt he recieves much if any at all. I can recommend reading the whole linked article as he talks in depth about the cost of playing and about how it's difficult to break even let alone make a living. Also about how it is a very short career and also a risk that all the training may not even result in any career.

I have read the whole article. A Tennis career is not the same as one's entire life. If Sergiy thinks he will retire and live off of what he earned as a Tennis player, he better think about a post-ATP career. (or try to be a part of the Top 4 - whichever occurs first).

hawkeye wrote:To make his point even clearer he talks about his brother. Despite having a potential to do well in tennis he is going to study at university (either first or instead of pursuing a career in tennis) Also and this is very significant he has this to say (from the same linked article)

"And by the way, if I had kids now, I’d never send them to play tennis."

I have anecdotal evidence that brothers do well in Tennis, just ask Marko (Djokovic - the WC at Dubai ) or Gerald (Melzer - Jurgen's younger brother).

There are Bryans, Rochuses, Williamses, etc., who can also help provide guidance.

BTW, Maria Kirilenko was asked about her children, and she replied in affirmative about them wanting to be tennis players.

Another option is to do a 'Bogomolov'. Just go across to the US of A, get into NCAA Tennis scholarships, turn Pro, and then go back to your country of origin, or ask a certain Sharapova, or Navaratilova, or Lendl.

socal wrote:It is a shame that if you are the #72 best tennis player in the world you struggle to make a good living and if you are the 72 best footballer in the world you are a multimillionaire.

... or NBA, MLB, NHL, etc.

socal wrote:I really do believe that more money should be given for qualifying for the first round and making the second round of the tournaments maybe with some money taken away from the top 4 guys. Already the top guys make much more money in terms of endorsments and would not be seriously hurt by giving up a little bit to the tour regulars.

Tennis has nothing to do with Philanthropy (... and the Top 4 have charities to put money back into the world). For example, Federer has been on tour since 1998, 15 years, living out of a suitcase, and is where he is due to his willingness to work hard with parental support. Djokovic, Bartoli, Lisicki, Wozniacki, Williamses have been supported very well by their respective parents. I wonder if Nadal was ever given a time-out for not finishing his home work?

It is a hard life, but being paid to play a sport that you love, is a rewarding experience.

Should I know mention studio musicians, or classical musicians (in particular) who are not even close to what Sergiy makes in his 15 year career?

Spot on LF

Perspective yet again

Laverfan, it is not a matter of charity. It is for the health of the overrall tour which at the end of the day is how the top guys earn their living. Less money for midranking players in comaprison with other sports will drive away good talent from the game. And if people complain about the lack of depth on tour this one change that would go along way to improving overrall depth over time.

socal,

Throwing money at the lower order is not the way to retain talent. This is how tennis has been. Why should players who play less based on results get better proportions compared to the top players who have worked their arses off to get there get less for their efforts?

People always get paid what they're worth. Fact of life.

Legend I am not calling for radical changes, a lot of players work their asses off and the vast majority of them will never get into the very top echelon of the game. Yet, these guys skill level wise are not that far off the pace, the gap between top 50 and top 10 is much less than we think in terms of game. Again look at golf middling talents make multimillions on the pga tour, ofcourse again golf is a much bigger revenue generating sport. Still a small nod to the midranking guys I think would improve the overral competiveness of the tour.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, it is not a matter of charity. It is for the health of the overrall tour which at the end of the day is how the top guys earn their living. Less money for midranking players in comaprison with other sports will drive away good talent from the game. And if people complain about the lack of depth on tour this one change that would go along way to improving overrall depth over time.

I also want the tour to be really healthy, competition-wise and player-health wise.

In days of Pancho, Pancho (Segura), Olmedo, Laver (for sometime), Hoad, Trabert, et al., 'Gate Receipts' were directly tied to who played and the players' remuneration was also linked. This is how the Pro tour (prior to Open Era) worked.

One complaint that I noticed was this deal of airfare, and expenses, etc. IIRC, there are local competitions on every significantly populated continent. One starts adding expenses as the desire to compete increases, physios, coaches, etc. IIRC, there is an interview with Federer circa 2002-2003, where he mentions that early round loses were expensive for him and his entourage because he was not bringing back enough money. It has been mentioned on 606v2 as well.

The lack of depth is not a pure derivative of the money on tour. Russian players are very good examples of how migration helps the players. There are two 250 events, Moscow and St. Petersburg, but they seem to do well by being based in Europe with plenty of opportunity. LatAm is full of clay tournies, so travel outside LatAm makes sense when a player is ready and can afford to go outside.

Look at LTA, pouring 25 Million pounds and the returns are paltry. So Money may be a factor, but there are other factors to consider as well.

Eventually, ATP/WTA is a for-profit business, and as you state, very hierarchical. The higher in the pyramid one is, the more one earns.

socal1976 wrote:Legend I am not calling for radical changes, a lot of players work their asses off and the vast majority of them will never get into the very top echelon of the game. Yet, these guys skill level wise are not that far off the pace, the gap between top 50 and top 10 is much less than we think in terms of game. Again look at golf middling talents make multimillions on the pga tour, ofcourse again golf is a much bigger revenue generating sport. Still a small nod to the midranking guys I think would improve the overral competiveness of the tour.

It's irrelevant how hard they work. A girl on Tesco counter may work her ass off but so what?

If they were worth more they'd be getting paid it.

Even the absurdity of equal prize money for women isn't so daft when you consider the price tournaments would otherwise pay in terms of whining and media hassle. There are many ways to maximise your worth, even if sometimes its not for the job but to withhold a threat.

I think the major issue really is that in terms of slams, the amount of total prizemoney in the last 5 years or so has gone up by 25%, but 80% of this rise has gone to increasing the money won for semi-finals and beyond.

There has been virtually zero rise for first and second round losers.

I think that's the gripe that the lower level players have really.

They should do something about it then.

djlovesyou wrote:I think the major issue really is that in terms of slams, the amount of total prizemoney in the last 5 years or so has gone up by 25%, but 80% of this rise has gone to increasing the money won for semi-finals and beyond.

There has been virtually zero rise for first and second round losers.

I think that's the gripe that the lower level players have really.

I have to second Dj's point here it is a good one. I am not calling for socialism, it has always been and always been a top down tour. I just think if instead of giving 80 percent of the bounce in prize money over the last few years to the top guys, maybe they could have thrown a few of those percentages points of increased revenue to the 1st and 2nd rounders. I don't really buy BB's argument about the girl at tesco's working really hard and it being analogous to this situation. I am sure there are a lot of hardworking people barely chalking together a living. But we are talking about the elites here. A player who is good enough to be among the 40, 50 or 100 best in a sport played by millions. We are not talking about the girl at tescos or the plumber who works nights as a taxi driver.

djlovesyou wrote:I think the major issue really is that in terms of slams, the amount of total prizemoney in the last 5 years or so has gone up by 25%, but 80% of this rise has gone to increasing the money won for semi-finals and beyond.

There has been virtually zero rise for first and second round losers.

I think that's the gripe that the lower level players have really.

Think about the qualifiers, if we are going to focus at the bottom of the totem pole.

Here is the Total Financial Commitment for each ATP tourney. - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx

socal1976 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:I think the major issue really is that in terms of slams, the amount of total prizemoney in the last 5 years or so has gone up by 25%, but 80% of this rise has gone to increasing the money won for semi-finals and beyond.

There has been virtually zero rise for first and second round losers.

I think that's the gripe that the lower level players have really.

I have to second Dj's point here it is a good one. I am not calling for socialism, it has always been and always been a top down tour. I just think if instead of giving 80 percent of the bounce in prize money over the last few years to the top guys, maybe they could have thrown a few of those percentages points of increased revenue to the 1st and 2nd rounders. I don't really buy BB's argument about the girl at tesco's working really hard and it being analogous to this situation. I am sure there are a lot of hardworking people barely chalking together a living. But we are talking about the elites here. A player who is good enough to be among the 40, 50 or 100 best in a sport played by millions. We are not talking about the girl at tescos or the plumber who works nights as a taxi driver.

So you're taking on the job of valuing people's worth?

The guy at #150 gets little money because his tennis just isn't worth it to the people who pay his wages. Just like the girl at Tesco's no matter how good she is at ringing up the bill. The analogy is perfect.

Mmmm...

scial1976

I don't often use emoticons but . Agree with so much of what you have said.

bogbrush

In your link Federer was talking about the two year ranking system only. IMO it's not the length of the ranking system that is preventing things from being more competative but a combination of factors including distribution of prize money and distribution of ranking points. None of us know exactly what was discussed. Stakhovski did indicate that Federer didn't disagree with Nadal but was reluctant to speak out publicly. It's interesting to have some inside information on this.

Also It's possible those "tesco girls" are being exploited. Hard work can only be guaranteed to pay off in an ideal world. There are always people who will try and get things for nothing... or as near to nothing as they can given half a chance.

hawkeye wrote:

... it's not the length of the ranking system that is preventing things from being more competative but a combination of factors including distribution of prize money and distribution of ranking points.

Are you saying that if Sergiy was paid more money, he would play better Tennis and get to Top 10? Or, he would play better Tennis if his ranking was protected for 24 months rather than 12? Hypothetically, if rankings were a 'lifetime' ranking, would Sergiy play better Tennis.

Are you saying the lure of higher ranking points would motivate Sergiy to play better Tennis? He is in the ranking system based on his performance on the Tennis court and there are 70+ players who win more than he can in the last 52 weeks? Correct?

We are now equating Prize Money to earned wages (which has been debated quite a bit). We are also begrudging Nadal his ability to represent Armani jeans in a better butt?

Well you asked what Federer had said and how I knew, so I put it up there.

As for exploitation, everyone "exploits" the other in a deal, it's just that those with little to offer can't do it as well. Like a #150 tennis player. That's his problem, nobody else's.
Maybe they need a Billie Jean King figure to get them a share of the earnings out of proportion to what they bring in OR maybe they need to find a way to prove their value. A strike by #'s 50-150 would prove it one way or the other. I suspect it'd prove they're paid their worth.

Nobody shouting for doubles I see. I mean, the Bryan's don't "deserve" more because they're really good at it?

As for distribution of ranking points, what do you mean?

Personally I warned everyone what would happen if they went professional but would they listen to me? No indeed they didn't. I remember telling my grand-daughter that if they decided to go professional in 1968 then there would come a day of the Nadals and the Djokovics and the end of tennis and the inequalities and the muscles and the corporate finance and the white suits and all that.

bogbrush

Ranking points like prize money don't always take as much effort to win. The top players always because of their ranking have it easier. This is just an example. Just like money. The more you've got the more you can get (sometimes with minimum effort)

https://www.606v2.com/t27077-ranking-points-give-away


Who am I to suggest any radical changes but nothing is set in stone. None of us know what exactly was discussed at any meeting.

I also wonder how wise it is for any player to get too involved in any political aspects of the game whilst they are playing. It could be a distraction. Maybe that is another reason why Nadal chose to step down.

Billy Jean King? Maybe thats the answer. I'm sure she could sort things out...

They find ranking points easier because they win. Only the 1st round bye could be said to be a true advantage (though seeding of course helps....). At least they don't have two year rankings to make it even more unfair! On the subject of which........

As for players on the Council, what's wrong with that? Like I say though, on the subject of 2 year points the only person I've heard speak for the good of the whole tour is Federer. Stakhovsky was just looking out for himself, which as with Nadal, is fine so long as it isn't misrepresented as speaking for the tour.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

... it's not the length of the ranking system that is preventing things from being more competative but a combination of factors including distribution of prize money and distribution of ranking points.

Are you saying that if Sergiy was paid more money, he would play better Tennis and get to Top 10? Or, he would play better Tennis if his ranking was protected for 24 months rather than 12? Hypothetically, if rankings were a 'lifetime' ranking, would Sergiy play better Tennis.

Are you saying the lure of higher ranking points would motivate Sergiy to play better Tennis? He is in the ranking system based on his performance on the Tennis court and there are 70+ players who win more than he can in the last 52 weeks? Correct?

We are now equating Prize Money to earned wages (which has been debated quite a bit). We are also begrudging Nadal his ability to represent Armani jeans in a better butt?

laverfan

If you travel with a coach, a physio, a dietician, a fitness trainer, a sports phychologist, an agent, several hitting parners, a multi slam winning mentor and an assortment of other people to take care of your every need so that your only worry is hitting a tennis ball. Do you think you would play better tennis than someone who may have equal talent but has just spent 9 hours flying economy and had chat with his wife (who also happens to be his coach) on tactics by way of preparation?

Of course the lure of ranking points and prize money would be the same for both players...

It all depends how fair a fight you want to watch.

You want to say as if top ranked player have all got their ranking based on a lottery that its so unfair that their top rankings gives them an advantage in tournaments. You want to say that all the current top ranked players had this luxury of a full time coach, physio, dietician, trainer, physchologist, agent, several hitting parter etc. from the beginning and hence they all were able to move up and grab the top rankings.

They all had to earn their rankings and they all started from the same point as everyone else. They moved ahead by virtue of their wins beating the top ranked players. Every year the ranking points of the previous year are dropped and all players start from 0 and the year end rankings are achieved. So they are all on the same platform. They have the luxury of coach, dietcians, physio, etc. because they earned it.

This is how one can become a top player. Now if Sergy or any other lower ranked player thinks that he should get everything without doing anything, then that is unfair to say and is being selfish. Sergy's views of this 2 year raking system must be because he was ranked much higher last year and this year he is struggling to keep those points. A 2 year ranking would have help him this year. But he fails to realize that if the 2 year ranking system was implemented 2 years back, he might never ever had the ranks he reached last year in the first place. Then despite playing well, he still would have been ranked lower. If that had happened, we surely would have read a different interview from him.

As someone who doesn't always find myself in agreement with Rotla's thinking, I do feel in this case he has summed things up very well here

And on the specific issue of rankings, I'd say that the current system is, IMO, about as good as it can get and I really don't see any justification whatever to tamper with it. It's a level playing field for everybody and as rotla says there is no magic or good luck formula for climbing to the top - and then enjoying the many associated benefits & rewards that come with it.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I'm in no doubt that Stakhovsky himself is realistic and well aware of this, but that some contributors might be misinterpreting his comments.