No Nadal in Argentina

[Murat Baslamisli]

He pulled out of the Buenos Aires tourney, citing stomach issues and lack of training after the AO because of the back. Link below. Hopefully he will be back for Brazil.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/02/6/Buenos-Aires-Nadal-Withdraws.aspx

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

diclofenac related stomach problems ???..could be. (anti-inflame pills)..

 

[Luxilon Borg]

He pulled out of the Buenos Aires tourney, citing stomach issues and lack of training after the AO because of the back. Link below. Hopefully he will be back for Brazil.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/02/6/Buenos-Aires-Nadal-Withdraws.aspx

I think you will see him be more selective with his schedule like Federer as he ages.

He was an absolute unstoppable bulldozer for 8 years, as he approaches 30 there will be more physical break downs.

I also notice he gets more stomach issues these days. I know tennis players in general get flare ups due to all the travel. This is about his third stomach virus in the past year.

 

[Moxie]

diclofenac related stomach problems ???..could be. (anti-inflame pills)..

Not out of the realm of possibility, given that he's probably taken a lot in his career. They'll do your stomach in.

He pulled out of the Buenos Aires tourney, citing stomach issues and lack of training after the AO because of the back. Link below. Hopefully he will be back for Brazil.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/02/6/Buenos-Aires-Nadal-Withdraws.aspx

I think you will see him be more selective with his schedule like Federer as he ages.

He was an absolute unstoppable bulldozer for 8 years, as he approaches 30 there will be more physical break downs.

I also notice he gets more stomach issues these days. I know tennis players in general get flare ups due to all the travel. This is about his third stomach virus in the past year.

I don't remember 3 stomach viruses, though I'll take your word. Good point about all the travel, though JLLB makes an interesting point about anti-inflammatories. Personally, I'm just as happy that he's not going. Rio is already enough before the big push starting with IW, and Miami will balance points.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

diclofenac related stomach problems ???..could be. (anti-inflame pills)..

Not out of the realm of possibility, given that he's probably taken a lot in his career. They'll do your stomach in.

He pulled out of the Buenos Aires tourney, citing stomach issues and lack of training after the AO because of the back. Link below. Hopefully he will be back for Brazil.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/02/6/Buenos-Aires-Nadal-Withdraws.aspx

I think you will see him be more selective with his schedule like Federer as he ages.

He was an absolute unstoppable bulldozer for 8 years, as he approaches 30 there will be more physical break downs.

I also notice he gets more stomach issues these days. I know tennis players in general get flare ups due to all the travel. This is about his third stomach virus in the past year.

I don't remember 3 stomach viruses, though I'll take your word. Good point about all the travel, though JLLB makes an interesting point about anti-inflammatories. Personally, I'm just as happy that he's not going. Rio is already enough before the big push starting with IW, and Miami will balance points.

He claimed stomach virus just before the 2013 Aussie Open and pulled out. Then again during the US Hard Court stretch that summer, and now. As a matter of fact during one of his matches at this years Aussie he claimed to be sick.

I heard he eats like there is no tomorrow so maybe he is not that selective...lol.

P.S. Sure Anti Imflammatories can screw up your digestive but they generally don't cause flue like symptoms and are pretty harmless with food except if taken in massive quantities.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

Anyway, this means now Nada's schedule is exactly full schedule for this year
(i.e., nothing more and nothing less). He plays 18 events not counting WTF.
Fed is playing 17, not counting WTF.

 

[Kieran]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

Anyway, this means now Nada's schedule is exactly full schedule for this year
(i.e., nothing more and nothing less). He plays 18 events not counting WTF.
Fed is playing 17, not counting WTF.

I see two more pull outs in his future. One after RG, Halle or Queens, whichever he is playing these days, and one during the Asia swing. Not because of injury ( I hope) but fatigue and such.

 

[Fiero425]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

Anyway, this means now Nada's schedule is exactly full schedule for this year
(i.e., nothing more and nothing less). He plays 18 events not counting WTF.
Fed is playing 17, not counting WTF.

I see two more pull outs in his future. One after RG, Halle or Queens, whichever he is playing these days, and one during the Asia swing. Not because of injury ( I hope) but fatigue and such.

I didn't expect Nadal to play Central and South America because he doesn't need the work or points! He's way ahead of the field and he'll be making up more excuses to withdraw from smaller events; bet any amount! :nono uzzled :cry

 

[Front242]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

Anyway, this means now Nada's schedule is exactly full schedule for this year
(i.e., nothing more and nothing less). He plays 18 events not counting WTF.
Fed is playing 17, not counting WTF.

I see two more pull outs in his future. One after RG, Halle or Queens, whichever he is playing these days, and one during the Asia swing. Not because of injury ( I hope) but fatigue and such.

Gotta be a right wuss to cite fatigue and skip Wimbledon without at least trying

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

 

[Front242]

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

 

[Moxie]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

 

[Front242]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

 

[Fiero425]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

 

[Front242]

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

Nah, I didn't actually mean him even if it sounds that way, I just kept on with the Halle and Wimbledon example seeing as the players generally feel they need to play a grass tune up prior to Wimbledon (besides Novak who never does) but yeah he played Halle last year for tax reasons. But aside from that, if they're going to play anyway, why pay them. And all the top guys feel they deserve fees so Nadal is no more greedy than the rest of them.

 

[Moxie]

I thought he will not pull out as there rumors that he was getting close to
million dollars in appearance fee in Argentina.

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

But that's why my point is that the choice to lure players with appearance fees lies with the tournament. I'm not sure where you get they "demand" them. (OK, I know there has been a dispute between Federer and Basel.) But I agree with you that it's stupid of Halle and Queens to offer appearance fees, if they do, since the top players will only play one or the other. It's not greed on the players to accept it. If I were those tournaments, I'd say: go ahead, play East Bourne or s'Hoertenbruge, or whatever it's called. But as to the tournaments in the "Golden Swing" (So. America,) and the "Asian Swing," they do try to draw big names who don't necessarily need them. And don't forget about lesser tournaments drawing lesser-lights. DC and Houston want names, even if they won't get the big 4. Other players get paid incentives, too.

 

[Front242]

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

But that's why my point is that the choice to lure players with appearance fees lies with the tournament. I'm not sure where you get they "demand" them. (OK, I know there has been a dispute between Federer and Basel.) But I agree with you that it's stupid of Halle and Queens to offer appearance fees, if they do, since the top players will only play one or the other. It's not greed on the players to accept it. If I were those tournaments, I'd say: go ahead, play East Bourne or s'Hoertenbruge, or whatever it's called. But as to the tournaments in the "Golden Swing" (So. America,) and the "Asian Swing," they do try to draw big names who don't necessarily need them. And don't forget about lesser tournaments drawing lesser-lights. DC and Houston want names, even if they won't get the big 4. Other players get paid incentives, too.

Well it's more stupidity on behalf of the tournament organizers than greed on the part of the players but it's a healthy dose of both to be honest as I'm sure they wouldn't play for free eventhough they should seeing as they need those tune up events prior to slams anyway. Yeah, I can see once off appearance fees to draw crowds fair enough but then if they return the following year the check should be for a big fat zero as the novelty has worn off.

 

[Moxie]

If he's unable to play, what does it matter how much they offer him?

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

I'm pretty sure that's true. So I'm not sure if Halle "incentivized" them to move over, but that would have been a waste of their money, if they were going to do it, anyway.

 

[Front242]

Huge waste of money alright if he was going to play there anyway. LOL, toilet paper Mr. Nadal? Here, take a briefcase of 500 notes.