2017 BNP Paribas Open...ATP 1000...Indian Wells, California USA (Trump Land)

[bottle]

"A War against Men..."

How about a war against the man who insipidly repeats this untruth over and over and over.

[klacr]

No, I couldn't tell you who was in the ladies final let alone who won. I have been very interested in women's tennis in the past, but not at the moment. I find the women's game heavy going I can tell you.

It would interesting if women's tennis were cut lose and left to true market forces. Most things these days are valued by what the free market think things worth. From what I understand, women's tennis is financially strapped to men's tennis to make it work in terms of equal prize money. I don't know the full ins and outs of it but I am sure Klacr can enlighten us. He seems to know more than most of us about these things...has his ear to the ground so to speak. If women's tennis were run entirely separately from the men's, in terms of venues, would anyone show up?

Men's tennis could well plummet soon. If I held shares in the tennis tour, I would be selling out about now, before Rafa and Roger exit the game. You may not like the pesky Spaniard but he is worth a few quid to the tour, that's for sure. And Roger has been keeping the whole show going even when the Spaniard has been out of action.

Elena Vesnina defeated Svetlana Kuznetsova in 3 long sets. The quality was nowhere close to the men but that's apples to oranges and different strokes fror different folks. Vesnina showed lots of fight being down a set and 1-4, willing her way back by playing aggressive and taking control of the net (she is an adept volleyer with a few doubles grand slams and a gold medal to her name). I know we often bash on women's tennis and I can't defend that, but you do have to give credit to the fighting spirit. If we had students down a set and 1-4 in a final, no matter what level, we'd be pretty pumped up and impressed that they won.

Fact: Items not on a stat sheet but count more than skill...
-Toughness, Character, Passion, Grit, Work Ethic, Discipline, Accountability.

moving on...because stotty mentioned my name

The WTA is without a main title sponsor this year. That should tell you something about their "market value". They have struggled with a long-term title sponsor for the past 8 or so years.

In 2014, the ATP’s revenue (which draws from sources such as media and sponsorships) was 54 percent ($107.1 Million), or $37.4 million, higher than the WTA’s revenue ($69.7 Million) according to the tax returns the groups filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The ATP for 2014 reported a surplus of $15.4 million on its tax return. The WTA on its return reported a surplus of $4.7 million

The Closest the two tours were in revenue was 2005, when ATP had $37.5Million and WTA with 36.4 million.
In 2008 the revenue for the ATP was $61.3 Million compared to $58.7million for WTA. Since then, the gap has increased exponentially.

the revenue disparity between the tours, the ATP and WTA paid their top executives roughly the same amount in 2014. ATP President Chris Kermode earned $1.16 million in 2014, according to that group’s return, while then WTA CEO Stacey Allaster earned $1.24 million. Overall, the WTA paid out $12.6 million in compensation, or 18 percent of revenue, compared to $12.01 million paid out by the ATP, or 11 percent of revenue, according to the returns.

The WTA in years past has had title sponsors, including Sony Ericsson, which held that role from 2004 to 2010. The company downsized its role to the status of lead sponsor between 2010 and 2012, though, and the tour has had no title or lead sponsor since. Another factor is Women’s sports are often at a disadvantage in the marketplace, because men’s sports have long been the standard bearers, and marketing decision-makers frequently hesitate to spend with women’s athletics.

The best place to see this economic and fanfare disparity is in the season ending championships in London (ATP) and Singapore (WTA)
London is selling out or damn near capacity at the behemoth O2 arena while the ladies play in a retrofitted convention center where large swaths of the stands stay empty.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Elena Vesnina defeated Svetlana Kuznetsova in 3 long sets. The quality was nowhere close to the men but that's apples to oranges and different strokes fror different folks. Vesnina showed lots of fight being down a set and 1-4, willing her way back by playing aggressive and taking control of the net (she is an adept volleyer with a few doubles grand slams and a gold medal to her name). I know we often bash on women's tennis and I can't defend that, but you do have to give credit to the fighting spirit. If we had students down a set and 1-4 in a final, no matter what level, we'd be pretty pumped up and impressed that they won.

Fact: Items not on a stat sheet but count more than skill...
-Toughness, Character, Passion, Grit, Work Ethic, Discipline, Accountability.

moving on...because stotty mentioned my name

The WTA is without a main title sponsor this year. That should tell you something about their "market value". They have struggled with a long-term title sponsor for the past 8 or so years.

In 2014, the ATP’s revenue (which draws from sources such as media and sponsorships) was 54 percent ($107.1 Million), or $37.4 million, higher than the WTA’s revenue ($69.7 Million) according to the tax returns the groups filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The ATP for 2014 reported a surplus of $15.4 million on its tax return. The WTA on its return reported a surplus of $4.7 million

The Closest the two tours were in revenue was 2005, when ATP had $37.5Million and WTA with 36.4 million.
In 2008 the revenue for the ATP was $61.3 Million compared to $58.7million for WTA. Since then, the gap has increased exponentially.

the revenue disparity between the tours, the ATP and WTA paid their top executives roughly the same amount in 2014. ATP President Chris Kermode earned $1.16 million in 2014, according to that group’s return, while then WTA CEO Stacey Allaster earned $1.24 million. Overall, the WTA paid out $12.6 million in compensation, or 18 percent of revenue, compared to $12.01 million paid out by the ATP, or 11 percent of revenue, according to the returns.

The WTA in years past has had title sponsors, including Sony Ericsson, which held that role from 2004 to 2010. The company downsized its role to the status of lead sponsor between 2010 and 2012, though, and the tour has had no title or lead sponsor since. Another factor is Women’s sports are often at a disadvantage in the marketplace, because men’s sports have long been the standard bearers, and marketing decision-makers frequently hesitate to spend with women’s athletics.

The best place to see this economic and fanfare disparity is in the season ending championships in London (ATP) and Singapore (WTA)
London is selling out or damn near capacity at the behemoth O2 arena while the ladies play in a retrofitted convention center where large swaths of the stands stay empty.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Fascinating, Klacr! I just knew you would have the answers most of us can only guess at. But at least I guessed right. By guessing right I am referring the year end championships....empty stands for the women, brimming for the men. Has the one-sided dominance of Serena caused this? After all, spectators show up hoping for a competitive contest, not a rout. Or is it because the women's game has become one dimensional and bland? Or is it simply because women cannot play as well as men?

The last time I remember the game being truly equal was Borg v McEnroe and Evert v Navratilova. I watched both rivalries with equal interest. I used to love watching Graf play Sabatini, Navratilova and even her contests with the emerging Williams sisters. But after Graf the women's game emptied out for me. I lost interest.

My guess is the women's game cannot stand alone. Left to stand on its own two feet (by playing at separate venues from the men), the women's game, as it stands at the moment, would go bust. It certainly couldn't offer the same prize money as men.

Ray Moore was wrong to say what he said last year. It wasn't politically correct. Old timers like Ray Moore need to learn to button up...or should they? Ray probably told the truth. He had the facts in front of him so just came out and said it. Some old timers do that.

The women's game can be every bit as good as the men's in terms of rivalries and entertainment. It's just at this present moment in time, it isn't.

[klacr]

Fascinating, Klacr! I just knew you would have the answers most of us can only guess at. But at least I guessed right. By guessing right I am referring the year end championships....empty stands for the women, brimming for the men. Has the one-sided dominance of Serena caused this? After all, spectators show up hoping for a competitive contest, not a rout. Or is it because the women's game has become one dimensional and bland? Or is it simply because women cannot play as well as men?

The last time I remember the game being truly equal was Borg v McEnroe and Evert v Navratilova. I watched both rivalries with equal interest. I used to love watching Graf play Sabatini, Navratilova and even her contests with the emerging Williams sisters. But after Graf the women's game emptied out for me. I lost interest.

My guess is the women's game cannot stand alone. Left to stand on its own two feet (by playing at separate venues from the men), the women's game, as it stands at the moment, would go bust. It certainly couldn't offer the same prize money as men.

Ray Moore was wrong to say what he said last year. It wasn't politically correct. Old timers like Ray Moore need to learn to button up...or should they? Ray probably told the truth. He had the facts in front of him so just came out and said it. Some old timers do that.

The women's game can be every bit as good as the men's in terms of rivalries and entertainment. It's just at this present moment in time, it isn't.

Men’s tennis globally has generally been more attractive — more events, more TV — than women’s tennis. The decade-long run of Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray atop the ATP as giving that circuit more consistency. Women's tennis interest and TV viewership surges with Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, after them, the interest steadily declines. The television contracts and coverage for women's tennis is far less than the men's but it is a catch-22 as the reason for lower television coverage is due to lack of attendance at these events and therefore exposure to less consumers for sponsors. An exciting rivalry and new marketing for WTA is what may get them on the right path, for now, It's Serena Williams winning a grand slam or someone else that many casual fans have never heard of.


Another fact: From July 2009 through the end of 2014, WTA revenue grew 19 percent. In that same period, ATP revenue increased 75 percent.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Finals...Roger Federer vs. Stan Wawrinka

Men's tennis could well plummet soon. If I held shares in the tennis tour, I would be selling out about now, before Rafa and Roger exit the game. You may not like the pesky Spaniard but he is worth a few quid to the tour, that's for sure. And Roger has been keeping the whole show going even when the Spaniard has been out of action.

Highlight video of the Federer vs. Wawrinka final at Indian Wells...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAR5KDMoSXo

For a small country Switzerland had supplied the tennis world with some of the best tennis in the past few years. The past many years. But these two guys may just well be the best matchup to watch...even though Roger owns him 20-3 in their overall matchup. Federer and anybody is good enough for me but Wawrinka plays right into his hands...and admirably so at times. Those times most notably have been the Tour Championships in 2014 which was perhaps the best two out of three set match I have seen in the last ten years. It had it all going on...even the women got into the fray. It was quite wild. Federer was so beat up by the match that he couldn't answer the bell for the finals the next day. Then they had to patch things up in order to win the Davis Cup against France. Which they did.

The Australian Open semi-final was an intriguing match as well with Federer comfortably in control until Stan takes a medical timeout and comes back to make a real match of it. Federer may have been a bit lucky to escape that one in five sets. But that is what Federer does against Stan...he takes what he has on any given day and he plays with it. He makes the best of it. Twenty out of twenty-three times it has been good enough.

Federer may have dodged a colossal bullet when Nick Kyrgios pulled out of their quarterfinal match. He did in fact dodge a potentially lethal bullet. But the record books won't show that and you will have to go to the draw sheet to find any mention of the walkover now. He was a bit fortunate to get to the finals here and luckier still to come out on top. Somebody once said...the harder I work, the luckier I get. Something like that.

Roger came out of the gate looking like he meant business. On the first point of the match he came to the net on the first short ball offered by Wawrinka and made a nifty routine backhand volley. On the two ensuing points he hit two backhand winners...he absolutely drilled the first one down the line and cranked the next crosscourt. Both players held serve up until Wawrinka was serving at 4-5 and 30-40. On set point they dueled for a full 30 seconds and 21 shots. Federer threw everything at Wawrinka including the kitchen sink. He was on defense...he was on offense. He played slice backhands and drive backhands. He even threw in a half volley off of the baseline. Finally Wawrinka had all that he could manage and he missed a forehand long to hand the first set to Federer.

It Wawrinka who came out swinging in the second set as he hit forehand winners on the first three points of the Federer serve. Roger managed to win two points before missing his newly favored drive backhand to lose his serve for the first time in the tournament. Take note here...it is Roger's serve that is his most improved shot in the bag. Relatively speaking...it is the serve game that is propelling Roger back to the top of tennis. Sure everything is improved including his legendary forehand...but capitalizing on a perfect serve motion to conserve energy and efficiently implement a tactical game plan is all serve...followed most often by a forehand. After the two winners in the first game of the match I con't remember Roger blasting anything off of the backhand past Wawrinka. This is what it means to play with what you have on any given day.

At 2-1 on Wawrinka's serve, Federer works his way into position to deliver a dagger to the heart of his Swiss comrade. He manages a 0-30 lead and then misses a relatively passing shot with a down the line forehand. Inside he is kicking himself in the butt but outwardly he lets it go and proceeds with the job at hand. Wawrinka misses with a "routine" backhand long and Roger goes to work...and Wawrinka lets it get away from him. At 15-40 Wawrinka stretches Federer with a first serve down the tee but Roger manages a return...a weak return that lands midway between the service line and the net. Federer guesses right and Wawrinka plays a tepid approach that barely goes past the service line...surprisingly Federer plays defense and lofts a lob that forces Stan to move backwards to smash. Federer returns but Stan is working his way back to the net. From a very defensive position Federer manages to slice a backhand at Wawrinka's feet forcing him to half volley up and Roger lines up this forehand and he is serious about the outcome. He drills it past Stan and it is a break of serve. Tthey are back on serve at 2-2.

They trade service games to 5-6 with Wawrinka serving. The contrast in their return games is black and white. Wawrinka retreats two or even three meters behind the baseline to return Federer's second serve with a baseball like swing to Federer's backhand. Federer on the other hand is moving forwards and taking Stan's second ball on the rise and driving it back into the Wawrinka backhand. This little bit of aggressive tactic pays off in the end for Federer as Wawrinka is not able to threaten the Federer serve and Roger maintains constant pressure on Wawrinka. Stan misses a number of fairly makable shots in his service game and Federer works his way "into position" for match point. He returns aggressively to the Wawrinka backhand. Stan doesn't give an inch on this first ball but Federer backs him way back on his heels with his next backhand that is hit with a ton of overspin clearing the net by at least two meters and very close to the Wawrinka backhand sideline. Wawrinka is forced more than two meters behind his baseline and maybe two meters wide of his doubles alley. He is way out of the court and plays to the backhand side of Federer's court. This time Roger runs around his backhand and pounces on Wawrinka's return that only manages to clear the service line...Federer drives the trusty forehand into the forehand corner and Wawrinka weakly gets the ball over the net where Roger pounces on the volley to win the championship.

While Federer's backhand was not quite as magnificent as it had been in his previous matches it held him up adequately. He resorted to more tactical play and moved Wawrinka around the court with an assortment of slice and drive...at the same time making timely forays into the net to conclude things. He must have been nearly 110 percent at the net play. Some of the backhand exchanges were really beautiful and the contrast in the two men made it all the more interesting. Wawrinka constantly bludgeoning and Federer changing the pace and the direction at will. Stan made up his mind that If Roger was going to press the issue he wasn't going to get caught with his short around his knees so he started to really press the issue in the second set. In the end it just may be that the Wawrinka backhand is the single most impressive shot in the game but Federer's tactical use of his own may have been the difference. But the single most important factor to Federer's success was his ability to CONTROL his own service game. What is power? I ask the student.

[stotty]

A good summary, don_budge.

I think the big problem is that Stan needs to have his legs under him virtually all the time to play great tennis. But Federer, here and there throughout a match, denies Stan that luxury. Sure they have great exchanges but for me it's Federer all the way. On a slow clay court maybe Stan can pull off an occasional result, but on any other surface....a win is unlikely.

And yes against Stan, Roger gets to completely control his service games, largely because Roger serves so well, and partly because Stan doesn't return that well. For a player with booming ground shots, Stan doesn't hit many booming returns. I always think most players - Djokovic and Murray excepted - are better off slamming returns against Federer. I always felt the same when players played McEnroe back in the day. You see you don't want to feel you are being dissected. It creates and inferior feeling to be dissected...not good psychologically. Better to hit balls in to the stands and play for the occasional break in my view.

No, the match up I want is Roger versus Djokovic. Despite some disappointing results, Djokovic is playing ok again, and he will definitely right his ship if he plays Federer. As Becker said recently, Djokovic needs to play Murray, Federer and Nadal to bring out his best tennis. Bring it on...Federer v Djokovic, preferable in the Wimbledon final.

I like big matches, the bigger the better....

[don_budge]

Stan Wawrinka...just became "The Man" in the eyes of don_budge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p--EGhFJylk

"I'm sorry...I'm just tired after ten days."

Stan Wawrinka tries to get his composure as he is visibly physically overwhelmed by the intensity of the match he has just finished with Roger Federer...losing 6-4, 7-5 in the finals of the 2017 Paribas Open at Indian Wells, California. The crowd is roaring their approval as well as their appreciation.

"I would like to congratulate Roger...he's laughing. He's an asshole."

Stan laughs at himself...Roger is totally caught up in the moment as well. The camera sees him laughing...genuinely. The two friends and competitors are standing before the crowd without any clothes. Roger wipes his eyes at the 34 second mark.

"I lost some tough ones against you...but when you played the final in Australia I was still your biggest fan. So congratulations for that and congrats for today. Of course...congrats to your team, your family. Everybody who is around you since many years...anybody who loves tennis loves to watch you. So it's always good to see you back at that level. Hopefully for many years."

A shot of Federer basking in the adoring words of his friend.

"I would like to thank my team here. My friends. And to the rest of my team who are not here today. They support me all the year. It isn't always easy, but it's been great so far. Thank you very much you guys."

Wawrinka goes on with the obligatory thank you's to the tournament and the personnel associated with it. His eloquence making an impression on everyone within ear shot.

This was an epic performance in the runner up role. Through his choking back his emotions and feelings he managed to express something that is at the core of tennis. Or at least it used to be. Sportsmanship.

The modern game leaves a lot to be desired. The future without Roger Federer is not what I would call promising. But as long as Roger is in the house something about his legacy rubs off on others. Today Stan Wawrinka stood up in his moment and fulfilled his obligations to not only his friend...but to the game of tennis. Sometimes I question whether Stan shows up to compete in lesser events but in this moment he stood up and it was his time. He was in the losing role and he handled it admirably.

For everything that Rafael Nadal was not in his runner-up role at the Australian Open...Stan Wawrinka was at Indian Wells. Even if he actually did refer to Roger Federer as an asshole. The two shared a intimate moment with everyone. Fighting each other with everything at their disposal one minute and then showing their respect for each the next. When it was all over.

Remember a few years back at London in the Tour Championships when there was some funny business going on behind the scenes with the women? It's nice to see the boys act like men when it counts. Nothing in the women's game comes close to this.

[don_budge]

I like big matches, the bigger the better....

I like matches with Roger Federer...and anybody. The rest of it has pretty much shot its load. There is only so much drama left in Djokovic vs. Murray or Djokovic vs. Nadal. Nadal doesn't exactly look like he is in his prime or close to it. Murray is just a bore.

The rest of the remaining cast of supporting characters have a difficult time carrying any sort of load. Wawrinka included. Nishikori, Berdych, Tsonga...they are old news. The tennis is basically the junior game on steroids. Kyrgios? I sort of doubt that he will ever develop into any kind of charismatic hero. The game needs a hero. Heroes. As it stands it is lacking this kind of player.

As you said...the stock has gone down. Who is going to buy into it? This is where the engineering has taken it. Do you ever wonder where A. I. is taking us? There are some metaphoric parallels to be drawn perhaps. Traditional values being cast aside without second thought. Replaced with what?

[bottle]

A.I. = artificial intelligence. The new driverless cars are going to kill people, but fewer, according to automotive wags around Detroit. Interesting.

[stotty]

I like matches with Roger Federer...and anybody.

I can't watch Federer and anybody if anybody is nobody. He just carves up the also-rans so easily it's just not too watchable for me. This is why I like to see him play the other three...the other being, well, you know who.

The acid test is yet to come. How will Roger fair against Djokovic or Murray in his current form? I think well, but we'll have to wait and see. It may be some wait because neither Murray nor Djokovic are playing Miami. I am surprised Roger is after his start to the season. The man must be fit. Either that or he feels sorry for the event's organisers since Murray and Djokovic have withdrawn.

Miami seems to have a tough time each year with last minute player exits. I gather it's not every player's favourite tournament. I would stage it before Indian Wells as I feel it often greatly helps a weaker tournament's case if it is staged before a stronger tournament rather than after. For example, no one would play Queens Club were it held the week after Wimbledon rather than the week before. Queens is strong event because of its positioning on the calendar.