By Benjamin Snyder
The sun has quickly – and probably too quickly — risen over another season in professional tennis. The Australian Open — also known as the Sunny Slam –is well underway, but injuries have already cast a substantial shadow on what should be a joyous start to a year ripe with competition.
In fact, the year’s first major suffered a total of 13 retirements. Nine came from the men’s side and four from the women’s. This beats the previous rate of 12 at the ’03 event.
Even at the 2011 US Open held at the end of August, a record number of players pulled out, along with 13 top men who entered the event hurt and four women.
As that major tournament progressed, according to a report put together by USA Today: “a rash of mid-match withdrawals…has pushed the U.S. Open into record territory. Never have more players retired at a Grand Slam tournament in the post-1968 Open era.”
The remarkable rate of retirements started at the tournament in Brisbane. Like the Grand Slams, it’s an event that draws some of the world’s top talent for both the men and women due to its status as a tune-up. This year, the WTA tournament featured the likes of recent US Open champion Samantha Stosur, last year’s Australian Open winner Kim Clijsters and the 13-time Grand Slam champion Serena Williams, among others.
Of those players, however, only one survived the week injury-free. Compare that to last year and no one bowed out due to injury. This year, the casualties totaled four.
In the 2012 ATP tournament held at Brisbane, one man retired this year as opposed to zero last year.
For the men, the off-season began with the year-end event in London on November 20. For the women, it was a month earlier. The problem is: that’s not nearly enough time for the body to rest, or to kick off the new season injury free.
And this is no way to begin a new year for tennis. It’s crucial that talks begin as soon as possible between players and officials. Instead, there’s been a series of infighting between 16-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer and World No. 2 Rafael Nadal.
States a recent Associated Press article: “A division has emerged, though, between Nadal and…Federer, who does not want the players’ grievances aired in public because he thinks it damages the image of the game.” The Swiss needs to know he’s in the wrong, and it’s up to the other players, including Nadal, to enforce more pressure on the situation.
Nadal, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick started to combine forces at the US Open by talking and alerting media, but since then action has barely taken place since besides more hushed meetings and angry press conferences.
In the same article, the ATP’s new chairman and president assured reporters that he’s aware of the concerns put forth by the players. He said: “I heard the players loud and clear the other night about their issues. My plan is to represent their opinions wherever it needs to be represented and make sure they’re heard.”
The only problem is: How many more men and women need to get hurt before that call to action is seriously undertaken? When will less tournaments be made mandatory for players from World No. 1 to 100 and when will more thought be given not for the sake of the sponsors, but rather to just how much the human body can physically manage?
With the way things seem to be going, 2012 maybe not be bright, but rather curbed by continued pain for some of the world’s most favored athletes. Meanwhile, fans, get ready for a bleak twilight to set on tennis this year than anything else if something drastic isn’t done soon.
PHOTO/JAMES RESTALL
Related posts:
- A (Pen)rosy vision for 2012? Tim Williams chats to Tourism Minister John Penrose about the...
- Chipping In: Is Andy Murray the Arsenal of Tennis? With yet another Grand Slam semi-final defeat last weekend Benjamin...
- Why we can’t wait for 2012 The film team look forward to the big releases of...
- It’s no Djok – women rule tennis now Sam Burne-James argues women's tennis is far more than it's...
- Tennis in 2011: serving up more of the same? LOVE The Australian Open starts 17th January, and Rafael Nadal...
Federer is right. Certain top players such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Roddick are looking after their selfish interests and, in the process, damaging the image of tennis. As president of the Player’s Council, Federer has responsibilities to look after the interests of all 2,000 ATP pro tennis players as well as the buisness viability and traditions of tennis, not just the interests of a few elite players. Unsuccesful players outside the top 60 depend on the availability of many tournaments which they have to play to survive.
The current system is already very flexible for top players to play as few as just 12 tournaments. For example, the top 30 players count their ranking points from (a) the results from 12 mandatory tournaments (4 Grand Slam and 8 Masters 1000 tournaments) and (b) the best 6 results from non-mandatory tournaments (e.g., ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, Challengers, Futures, Davis Cup, Olympics) provided they have played 4 ATP 500 events (including at least 1 after the US Open). Thus, the minimum required to avoid fines and suspensions are the 12 mandatory events. Players can maximize their ranking points earned by playing another 4 to 6 non-mandatory tournaments beyond the 12 mandatory tourneys. Top players like Nadal choose play these non-mandatory events (e.g., Bangkok, Doha, London Queens club, Tokyo, Barcelona) partly because they get huge appearance fees (e.g., in 2010 Nadal reportedly received $1.5 million in appearance fees for travelling to Thailand and playing in the Bangkok hardcourts one week after he won the US Open; in Bangkok, he lost to the World No. 54 player, a Spanish claycourter). Nadal whines about the 12 mandatory events because such events do not give him lucrative appearance fees. Federer knows all this, yet chooses not to reveal the hypocrisy of top players on this matter. In addition, despite his whining about a packed schedule, Nadal chooses to play multiple exhibition tournaments every year, because he receives huge appearances fees for these events outside the ATP Tour. Hypocritical players like Nadal have the choice to play fewer than 18 events, as long as they play the 12 mandatory tournaments that form the backbone of the ATP Tour. In the 8 years since 2004, Federer has played only 15 tourneys per year (2005, 2009), 16 tourneys (2007, 2011) and 17 tourneys (2004, 2006) — all without whining because he feels responsible for helping tennis to grow. In 2005, Federer took three breaks during the year to deal with injuries, missing 3 mandatory Masters 1000 events as a consequence. Furthermore, since 2007, conditions have become much easier for top players as non-grand slam tournaments (including Masters 1000) no longer require top players to play in the first round and the finals are no longer best of five sets. Players like Ivan Lendl, Sampras, Agassi and Federer played Federer in 2006 played 97 matches, including 11 finals under the best of five set format and 10 tournaments where he had to play at least six rounds. In 2011, Djokovic just played only 76 matches, including only 4 finals under the best of five set format and only 4 tournaments where he had to play at least six rounds (i.e., only the 4 grand slam tourneys had those tougher conditions). Top players like Nadal and Djokovic could have found pockets to rest had they not been lured by greed for big appearance fees to play small tournaments.
This article is clearly biased in favor of Nadal’s view without taking into consideration all of the other intangibles that Federer is considering. Nadal is advocating a two year ranking system because it serves his own interests. If there was a two year system in play, he would still be the World #1 despite losing 7 finals in a row to Novak Djokovic. He’s not an advocate of injured players, he’s very selfish with his proposals. Few players would have the chance to advance in the rankings under the system he wants. Why should the ATP change their whole system just to suit one person?
Fewer tournaments means that fewer players have chances of making money, especially the players who use prize money as a form of subsistence. As the previous poster already mentioned, Federer is considering those who aren’t as blessed as the top 20 — he’s thinking about the guys who make it from tournament to tournament. Without smaller tournaments for these guys. they’d have a much much harder time scraping together a living. Nadal should stop talking about things he clearly knows nothing about since his fanboys buy into his arguments wholesale without even considering their ramifications.