BBC Home

Explore the BBC

12 comments

user rating: 4 star

Byes in Masters Series events

Masters Series
by MattP (U1739863) 28 July 2008
comment on the article

Why are there byes in the first rounds of Masters Series events? If someone could explain this i'd be grateful (if there is a reason tha is). I just find this really puzzling. Why should the top seeds be given byes to start off the event? I assume this is to reduce the number of matches in the whole event and basically means the first round is just a qualifing round in effect. I just think that this puts all non seeded players at a disadvantage and protects the seeds and atheir rankings.

There are plenty of good players who i feel should fill these gaps and give the seeded players a test, at least give them a game and make their tournament at least a little more phsically demanding.

On another note i feel that there are too many Masters Series events in North America and they should be spread a bit better around the world. I mean Indian Wells, Miami, Toronto, and Cincinati. Is this fair?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Jul 28, 2008

Yes a grass court masters would be great. I would certainly address some of the bias towards hardcourts.The USA is where the money is in terms of sponsorship, which is why it gets 4 I suspect.

Surely if the AELTC, with its massive resources, put its weight behind a bid there might be, at least, a discussion about it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

Fortunitely the ATP isn't as bad as the PGA. In the PGA, most American's play perhaps in the British Open... and that is all.

I guess it comes down to sponsorship.

Matt, if there weren't any bye's, players like Nadal would play every day for 5 weeks straight... probably why they get injured smiley

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 28, 2008

The rule is a priviledge for being in the top 8 seeded players in that tournament, I doubt it is about giving them an advantage. The advantage only occurs when a non seeded player has taken part in a final the day before the start of a tournament, in that case if he or she was scheduled to play a round 1 match on the Monday that match is moved as a courtesy and in the interest of fairness.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Surely if the AELTC, with its massive resources, put its weight behind a bid there might be, at least, a discussion about it.

The All England Club is a private club that happen to host the world's premier tennis event. Why would they have any interest in 'bidding' to host a Masters Series?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

‘The USA is where the money is in terms of sponsorship, which is why it gets 4 I suspect.’

Toronto/Montreal aren’t in the USA, Justine doh

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by MattP (U1739863)

posted Jul 29, 2008

I think some of the comments say it all. Firstly players shouldn't play back to back tournaments. I think if the ranking system (and sponsors/advertising commitments) didn't require this then players wouldn't be injured so much. Secondly, give me a break, why should the best players get a break over the lesser players. Assuming tournaments weren't back to back why should the best players be allowed to be fresher as you come to the crunch matches? That is unless you want no competition and the top seeds always to be the top seeds. I think players should be limited to the number of tournaments they can play in, and possibly the ranking system should only take a specified number of tournament results into account (also only a certain number on each surface).

I'm not sure a grass court masters is feasible, unless you moved the Queen's tournament a few weeks after Wimbledon, but then you'd lose a warm up tournament. I'm not sure where other than Queen's you could host a masters series event on grass. What i would like to see is more tournaments in the UK. An indoor, or hard court tournament in the UK (whether a Masters Series or not) is much needed imo if we are ever to get more players coming through and more people playing the game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

The Master's Series is an excellent setup where the best players earn byes. That is the reason all players aspire to the top 8. I am sure Andy will appreciate the extra day's rest. In previous years he did not have this luxury. Now he has earned the right.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by MattP (U1739863)

posted Jul 29, 2008

I agree the Masters Series is a great series, however i just think that there is some self preservation going on here. I don't think the top players should be given the luxury of a bye in the first round. They'd probably breeze through them in most cases anyway (although this is hardly a reason not to have them). Top seeds should have to play as hard and as many matches as everyone else.

Does no one think that there is too much tennis being played and this is causing injuries to the players and not benefitting anyone? Players should just not be playing tournament after tournament and if they decide to do this then it is on their own head. Master Series shouldn't be back to back anyway (i think this time is down to the compacted schedule due to the Olympics), but if a top player played a tournament directly before or after one then it is hardly any tougher than the schedule they have in a grand slam. They are only doing it for monetary reasons. In the end i feel the tour will suffer from injury after injury to the best players.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Matt,

They do play as many if not more because as a general rule they last longer in tournaments compared to the lesser lights. Players also play qualifying games before the main draw so you could argue it should be an all-in at the start of qualifying.
I like the idea of players earning the right in Master's Series (hence the title) to get byes based on their previous performances.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by MattP (U1739863)

posted Jul 31, 2008

I understand your point about playing the same number of games due to lasting longer and over the year you are right, but in a tournament by tournament view for an unseeded player to win the tournament he does have to play more matches.

I think it is a little distorted discussing this as we have had back to back Master Series tournaments which is unusual. I just think there is too much pressure on players to overplay and cause themselves injuries or burnout.

It is all well and good saying they should gain an advantage (as that is what it is - an advantage) by playing well enough to be a top seed, but this is biassing the tournament in favour of the top seeds (not necessarily the best player at that time as fatigue will be a factor whatever anyone says). The seeds get enough of an advantage by the draw giving them an easier route through the tournament. How much more advatage do you want to give them?

I also think it would give more of a chance to 8 up and coming players that are just outside the neccesary ranking to get in.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 66.67%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 33.33%
    1 votes

average rating:
3.67 from 3 votes