[patrycjakolekk]

I don't even know where we are right now. I found a thread on Roadmap's 2009 plans but I don't think there's been anything on 2010 yet.

So, I don't know if it's news, but my Toronto media centre neighbor Steve Keating from Reuters has this from Montreal:

Road Map 2010, the WTA's masterplan to bring order to the sport's structure and schedule, will be formally unveiled at the U.S. Open next month.
But WTA president Stacey Allaster, during a visit to the Montreal Cup on Tuesday, revealed details of the ambitious overhaul which will be rolled out next season, a year earlier than planned.

...................

Tour prize money will rise from $63.6 million (32.1 million pounds) in 2006 to $84.4 million next season but it will come at a price with a more regimented system and greater accountability.
Under Road Map 2010, 26 Tier One and Tier Two events will be combined into 20 Premiere tournaments with players committed to play in at least 10.

.....................

Four $4.5 million tournaments in Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Beijing will be mandatory for all players who qualify.


MANDATORY EVENTS


Below the mandatory events will be five $2 million stops in Canada, Dubai, Rome, Cincinnati and Tokyo, of which the top-ranked players must play at least four. The WTA has committed to having at least seven of the world's top 10 players at each of these events.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis...BrandChannel=0





So, if I understand correctly, Moscow and Berlin get screwed the most, with Cincinnati picked over Charleston and Dubai over Doha

[QxmFwtlam]

Boo-hiss!

[gluckmeea]

The detail I am waiting to here about again is whether they stuck to the maximum number of top players that can play at the non-mandatory events (except those positioned the week before a major). Because it's just a real shame if tournaments like Charleston can only have one top 6 or two top 14 players. I fear financially, they will go under within a few years.

I sound like a broken record, but that part is the problem I had with the whole system. I have no trouble with mandatory events.

[pongeystrhjst]

The detail I am waiting to here about again is whether they stuck to the maximum number of top players that can play at the non-mandatory events (except those positioned the week before a major). Because it's just a real shame if tournaments like Charleston can only have one top 6 or two top 14 players. I fear financially, they will go under within a few years.

I sound like a broken record, but that part is the problem I had with the whole system. I have no trouble with mandatory events.

Hope that is minimum 'cuz I do agree with you on the financial part. Also, with this new system in place next year, I interpret it like that a top player could not play in their home tournament if the tournament is part of the International Group.

[QxmFwtlam]

The detail I am waiting to here about again is whether they stuck to the maximum number of top players that can play at the non-mandatory events (except those positioned the week before a major). Because it's just a real shame if tournaments like Charleston can only have one top 6 or two top 14 players. I fear financially, they will go under within a few years.

I sound like a broken record, but that part is the problem I had with the whole system. I have no trouble with mandatory events.

No problem with the fact that all of the mandatory events are hardcourt/indoor events? If they did that in the ATP, half of the guys in the top 100 (maybe more) would defect the ATP and create their own tour.

[gluckmeea]

No problem with the fact that all of the mandatory events are hardcourt/indoor events? If they did that in the ATP, half of the guys in the top 100 (maybe more) would defect the ATP and create their own tour.

I have problems with their choices - just not the idea of mandatory events.

Madrid, I believe, will be on clay.

[ttiokjbnhjjillp]

No problem with the fact that all of the mandatory events are hardcourt/indoor events? If they did that in the ATP, half of the guys in the top 100 (maybe more) would defect the ATP and create their own tour.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The men have fought the demotion of clay court events. The women haven't.

[QxmFwtlam]

I have problems with their choices - just not the idea of mandatory events.

Madrid, I believe, will be on clay.

I thought it was going to be an indoor fall joint event with the men.

[gluckmeea]

I thought it was going to be an indoor fall joint event with the men.

I thought it was going to be a joint clay event in the spring. That was why the ATP was initially ditching both Monte Carlo and Hamburg as Masters Series events. They were still going to have two on clay, but they would be Rome and Madrid.

[QxmFwtlam]

I thought it was going to be a joint clay event in the spring. That was why the ATP was initially ditching both Monte Carlo and Hamburg as Masters Series events. They were still going to have two on clay, but they would be Rome and Madrid.

You need to stop making sense. It's very annoying.

I've hated Roadkill from Day 1 and no amount of logic is going to change that.

[Zpxbawtz]

No problem with the fact that all of the mandatory events are hardcourt/indoor events? If they did that in the ATP, half of the guys in the top 100 (maybe more) would defect the ATP and create their own tour.

Madrid and Rome will be on clay. That is only one less clay tournament than men are playing.

Clay is a minority surface - how about just accepting that and moving on?

[tuszit]

Madrid and Rome will be on clay. That is only one less clay tournament than men are playing.

Clay is a minority surface - how about just accepting that and moving on?

Because it's unjust. Should we just accept all other things that are wrong and move on? I'm not.

[Zpxbawtz]

Because it's unjust. Should we just accept all other things that are wrong and move on? I'm not.

Why is it unjust? Merely because players from certain countries prefer it?

[QxmFwtlam]

Madrid and Rome will be on clay. That is only one less clay tournament than men are playing.

Clay is a minority surface - how about just accepting that and moving on?

I stand corrected. But I could have sworn there was discussion about a fall even in Madrid at one point. And we weren't talking about WTA Rome. It's not mandatory.

Re: clay being a minority surface, I don't agree at all. But 95% of the American men would.

[tuszit]

Why is it unjust? Merely because players from certain countries prefer it?

It's unjust IMO because it is constantly trying to be pushed aside by a minority of players, mainly interests from the USA.
And I think that just is balance. Being three, or four if you consider carpet, main surfaces, the amount of tournaments should be divided accordingly.

[Andoror]

It's unjust IMO because it is constantly trying to be pushed aside by a minority of players, mainly interests from the USA.
And I think that just is balance. Being three, or four if you consider carpet, main surfaces, the amount of tournaments should be divided accordingly.

I would keep same amount of clay events, reduce hardcourts and add some more grass.

Of course that will never happen.

[Rffkwfct]

It's unjust IMO because it is constantly trying to be pushed aside by a minority of players, mainly interests from the USA.
And I think that just is balance. Being three, or four if you consider carpet, main surfaces, the amount of tournaments should be divided accordingly.

I agree. it is NOT a minority surface. It's by far the most common surface in tennis clubs in Europe and South America. If you start playing tennis here, you start on clay. (and as for hobby player like me- we keep playing on clay only, safe winter practise indoors.) I just think cutting back the clay events played is an inbuilt disadvantage for all players growing up in Europe and South America.

[ImapFidaarram]

I agree. it is NOT a minority surface. It's by far the most common surface in tennis clubs in Europe and South America. If you start playing tennis here, you start on clay. (and as for hobby player like me- we keep playing on clay only, safe winter practise indoors.) I just think cutting back the clay events played is an inbuilt disadvantage for all players growing up in Europe and South America.

I don't profess to know, but I would guess that the issue is more about dollars than about surface. Where's the money for event sponsorship, ticket sales, TV coverage...? I would bet that tilts more in favor of North America, which tilts more in favor of hardcourts.

[tuszit]

I agree. it is NOT a minority surface. It's by far the most common surface in tennis clubs in Europe and South America. If you start playing tennis here, you start on clay. (and as for hobby player like me- we keep playing on clay only, safe winter practise indoors.) I just think cutting back the clay events played is an inbuilt disadvantage for all players growing up in Europe and South America.

Totally. Here, in Argentina I'd say 98% of all courts are clay. It's also a question of economics around here. Claycourts are much cheaper to build and mantain than the other ones.
And just for the record, I play on clay and hardcourts (I'm lucky enough to go to a club where there's ONE, one of 25). And I enjoy playing on both surfaces. BUT I like playing on hardcourts more. My game is better there too. But I keep my objectivity and see how hardcourts are being pushed down our throats many times by some interests and defend clay -albeit my preference of court.

[QxmFwtlam]

Looking at the 2008 ATP Calendar, I counted (albeit very, very quickly):

24 clay events
22 outdoor hardcourt events
13 indoor hardcourt events

Even if you combined the indoor/outdoor hardcourt events (though someone like Soderling likes indoor and tolerates outdoor), clay is the #2 surface on the calendar. Carpet and grass, on the other, would qualify is "minority" surfaces. But clay? Definitely not.