Barclays ATP World Tour Finals - Day 2

[brokenshoelace]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

 

[huntingyou]

I agree - we should have a proper indoor season, but the tournament name should possibly change.

Also, add a few more indoor events, just like they'll hopefully upgrade a few grass court events when Wimbledon moves back. We don't need 3 clay MS events. Make Queens a grass MS event and force Shanghai to go indoors (if we're to persevere with China), to add balance to the year...

Why should the name change? It's not like the French Open is named the Clay Open. I know what you mean, since the WTF is supposed to be the World Tour Finals, but you have to assign a surface. So if it's played on grass, should it be called World Grass Court Championship?

I think kieran means if I'm correct, the "world tour finals" imply the ultimate championship for the season despite the season consists of at least 4 different surfaces.

The best player on tour doesn't always win the WTF as in the case with Novak and Rafa in the last few years. The WTF as it is, give us the best player indoor and not the best player during the season if that's possible.

Just semantics I guess

 

[tented]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

Why does the WTF have to be seen as the climax of anything? Why can't it simply be a change, as is the case with Wimbledon?

 

[Kieran]

Exactly. World Indoors Championships, after a decent indoors series. They've changed the name so often, by the way, that calling it the WTF is possibly correct, if we re-read those initials...

 

[Kieran]

Complete change of direction: BBC used ridiculously pretentious camera work and editing for that interview with Rafa! :Lolz:

Close-ups of an eyeball, his legs as he sits, then zooming back out. Sheesh! Just leave it! :Lolz:

 

[Didi]

Anyway, making the WTF a clay court tournament, even for a couple of years, would be odd and somewhat nonsensical, as all the tournaments leading up to it are play on fast hards/indoors. It only makes sense that it's played on that kind of surface. It's the same logic behind playing Masters 1000 events on clay before a major on clay, playing a grass court tournament before a major on grass, and Masters 1000 events on hards before a major on hards.

Indoor tennis is dying as it is, we don't have to bury it further. Diversity is good. I'm all for changing the venue every now and then. But the surface should stay similar. It would MAYBE be fine if it's played on an outdoor fast hard court, but a bigger change than that would be too extreme.

That's a well balanced post. As for fast outdoor hardcourts, they gave it a try with Houston in 2003-2004 and I think Nadal was referring to that as well but it failed due to rain, heavy storms and wind issues interrupting both events. I am a huge fan of Indoor tennis but even I would not mind the YEC moving to outdoor hardcourts and being held in Australia, South Africa or California where weather shouldn't be a huge issue in November. But to be honest I can understand all parties here. A player of Nadal's calibre, we are talking about a top 5 player of all time, should be able to adapt to a low bouncing Indoor surface where every single all-time great excelled at.

 

[Front242]

WTF is a perfect name and doesn't need to be changed. It's the final big tournament of the year. Final tournament of the top players in the ATP tour. World Tour Finals. Makes perfect sense. To those who dislike that name you can still call it the WTF and let it be WTF you like yourself!

 

[brokenshoelace]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

Why does the WTF have to be seen as the climax of anything? Why can't it simply be a change, as is the case with Wimbledon?

I don't necessarily agree that Wimbledon is "a change." I mean yes, it is a change of surface compared to the previous major, but not the previous tournaments, actually. I also don't think anybody views Wimbledon as a change. At least that's not the first thought that springs to mind. They just view it as one of the most prestigious tournaments of the year, and one of the 4 majors.

Why does the WTF have to be a change?

 

[Kieran]

All the razzmatazz, I'm not a fan of it. Blaring up on the screens, BREAK POINT!!!!, as if we didn't know. The tennis is enough! We don't need dry ice, pop music and epilepsy inducing flashing lights.

Let the battle commence! :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

I also don't see why Indoors should be short-changed. I love clay court tennis as much as the next guy, but we get plenty of clay court tennis during the season, including a major. Can't we at least play a significant tournament indoors? Or does Paris have to be the absolute pinnacle of indoor tennis, which would be quite sad...

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's the final big tournament of the year. Final tournament of the top players in the ATP tour. World Tour Finals.

Yeah, that's exactly why I view it as a climax. Or at least it's supposed to be. I couldn't care less about the name, they can change it to whatever they want. But changing the surface would be dubious since you're asking the players to re-adapt all of a sudden when you don't really need to.

The difference between that and the Wimbledon analogy is that Wimbledon has long been played on grass, so yeah, they have no choice but to adapt to a new surface. But why would you, for no particular reason, change the surface two days after the players were playing indoors?

 

[DarthFed]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

Why does the WTF have to be seen as the climax of anything? Why can't it simply be a change, as is the case with Wimbledon?

It's the 5th biggest tournament of the year and tournaments like Paris and Basel serve as tuneups for those who qualify. After RG they immediately play a tiny ATP 250 in Queens or Halle to prep for the bigger event. It's the same deal with WTF except it obviously is not as big a deal as a major.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

Why does the WTF have to be seen as the climax of anything? Why can't it simply be a change, as is the case with Wimbledon?

It's the 5th biggest tournament of the year and tournaments like Paris and Basel serve as tuneups for those who qualify. After RG they immediately play a tiny ATP 250 in Queens or Halle to prep for the bigger event. It's the same deal with WTF except it obviously is not as big a deal as a major.

Yeah, in a nutshell. At least that's how I always looked at it.

The WTF is played indoors and there's not much wrong with that. Why change for the sake of change? It just feels like creating issues where there aren't any.

 

[Front242]

Ok, we have a slow/medium paced outdoor hardcourt slam with the AO, a clay slam with RG, a grass slam with Wimbledon and a medium paced outdoor hardcourt slam with the US Open. Seeing as the WTF is considered by many as the 5th slam (no nonsense about the 5th slam being Indian Wells or Miami please), it's only fitting that it's on the one surface not catered for already: namely indoor hardcourt. All other slam events are outdoor. Failing that they could have a tequila slam where all the top players compete to see who gets wasted the most in a 5 hour window. Nalbandian may come back out of retirement and win that one, making monkies out the top guys.

 

[tented]

But the problem is that it IS indoor season. What sense does it make to play a bunch of tournaments indoors or on fast outdoor hardcourts and then suddenly play on clay or grass the very last week. The tournament has to be played on some surface so might as well not do a total 180 for just the last week which would undoubtedly cause a pretty poor show.

They play a bunch of tournaments on clay, then switch to grass the week after RG. In that case, it's considered to be a great challenge to make the adjustment and win both, hence its rarity. Why would this be different?

Because Roland Garros is seen as the culmination -- the climax if you will -- of the clay court season. After that, we turn the page, and move on to a different surface.

Likewise, the WTF takes place at the end of the indoor/fast hards season, and is seen as the climax.

Why does the WTF have to be seen as the climax of anything? Why can't it simply be a change, as is the case with Wimbledon?

I don't necessarily agree that Wimbledon is "a change." I mean yes, it is a change of surface compared to the previous major, but not the previous tournaments, actually. I also don't think anybody views Wimbledon as a change. At least that's not the first thought that springs to mind. They just view it as one of the most prestigious tournaments of the year, and one of the 4 majors.

Why does the WTF have to be a change?

Every year people talk about the difficulty of the switch from clay to grass, so, yes, it's seen as a change. (At least the US media go on and on about the surface change.)

I'm not saying the WTF has to be a change; I'm saying why can't it be? Also, to be clear, I'm not being a Rafa fanboy and suggesting it needs to be changed to clay. It is the World Tour Finals -- where Tour does connote the entire tour. It's not called The Indoor Hard-court Championships.

Oops, the match is beginning ... I'll stop writing about this for now.

 

[Front242]

All the razzmatazz, I'm not a fan of it. Blaring up on the screens, BREAK POINT!!!!, as if we didn't know. The tennis is enough! We don't need dry ice, pop music and epilepsy inducing flashing lights.

Let the battle commence! :clap

Maybe a bit glitzy on tv but I have to say having been there a few years ago it's a brilliant venue and if you get decent seats you're really not far from the players at all. We loved it there. 50 feet from Fed, Tsonga, Nadal and Fish at most. I actually liked Nadal and Fish's match a lot more.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Every year people talk about the difficulty of the switch from clay to grass, so, yes, it's seen as a change. (At least the US media go on and on about the surface change.)

I'm not saying the WTF has to be a change; I'm saying why can't it be? Also, to be clear, I'm not being a Rafa fanboy and suggesting it needs to be changed to clay. It is the World Tour Finals -- where Tour does connote the entire tour. It's not called The Indoor Hard-court Championships.

Oops, the match is beginning ... I'll stop writing about this for now.

Well yeah, of course Wimbledon marks a change in surface. I'm just saying that's not the first thought to spring to mind. Plus, I think Wimbledon is a necessary change (due to the fact that it will always be played on grass). This on the other hand, would be an unnecessary. I'd also argue that the fact that everyone discussed about the difficulty in of the switch from clay to grass, means avoiding a change in surface before the WTF is the way to go. Nobody wants to see the top 8 players in the world struggle with sloppy play because they're asked to adapt to a new surface in the span of two days.

 

[tennisville]

Breaks exchanged to begin

This surface definately doesnt suit Rafa

 

[tented]

Breaks exchanged to begin

This surface definately doesnt suit Rafa

True, but I think it's interesting to see him try to adjust.

 

[Kieran]

All the razzmatazz, I'm not a fan of it. Blaring up on the screens, BREAK POINT!!!!, as if we didn't know. The tennis is enough! We don't need dry ice, pop music and epilepsy inducing flashing lights.

Let the battle commence! :clap

Maybe a bit glitzy on tv but I have to say having been there a few years ago it's a brilliant venue and if you get decent seats you're really not far from the players at all. We loved it there. 50 feet from Fed, Tsonga, Nadal and Fish at most. I actually liked Nadal and Fish's match a lot more.

The music at the changeovers? Is it not irritating to the players when they're trying to figure out their next moves?