Planning not Practice makes Perfect?

When Montreal rolls in next week it would be a whole month since the top 4 played a competitive match. It's quite clear that the rest of the field play as many tournaments as possible to rack up ranking points and titles. No doubt that being ranked in the top 8 has it advantages during the master events, but do the rest of the field need to look at their schedules and maybe tinker and plan like the top 4 to give themselves that extra edge when heading into a Grand Slam?

I think that come the US Open we will see the usual names banded around for the title, but do the other players give themselves a realistic chance of success at these events given the amount of game time they have accumilated?

Hence why I don't think practice makes perfect.

Maybe, but for the field maybe a bigger consideration is what they earn.

Its just natural that the bigger players always play fewer events. I mean there are exceptions to this guys like Agassi when he was young and connors would play a large number of events. But generally the top 3 or 4 guys who don't need points or prize money lighten the schedule for themselves and focus on the big events. But the guys who don't win titles, or get points, or prize money as easily have to try to maximize their chances for honors. In tennis there is a big drop off between what the top couple of players make and then everybody else, and another big drop off after the top 8 or 10 guys down. So all the pros, even high ranked ones have to maximize their chances at prize money, attention and garnering trophies; again remembering that their window for success is so abbreviated.

Agree, the further down the rankings you go, the more the players have to grind out a living.

Of course if you continually go deep into tournaments you are playing much the same amount of tennis as the guy who habitually catches the next plane after the first round!

time please wrote:Agree, the further down the rankings you go, the more the players have to grind out a living.

Of course if you continually go deep into tournaments you are playing much the same amount of tennis as the guy who habitually catches the next plane after the first round!

time please
Again you've made me think! Thought I'de check ranking compared with total matches played.

(1) Djokovic 49 matches in total
(10) Almagro 56
(20) Del Potro 46
(30) Davydenko 29
(40) Monaco 35
(50) Montanes 33
(60) Kukushkin 24
(70) Haider-Maurer 15
(80) Gimeno-Traver 30
(90) Blake 18
(100) de-Bakher 13

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

Havn't looked at full list but far from "grinding it out" the lower ranked players appear to play less matches than the higher. Being able to string wins and therefore matches together is a sign of success. Its only the top ranked players that can boast about the the length of the calander.

Hawkeye my point was about entering events. If you get to the finals and semis of every event you enter you will play more matches. Djokovic has played 50 matches but only entered in 9 events. Players over 50 play a lot of qualification matches that don't count. And a lot of times fail to qualify for some tournaments. Imagine how many matches Djokovic would have this year if he didn't withdraw from 4 tournaments.

hawkeye wrote:(1) Djokovic 49 matches in total
(10) Almagro 56
(20) Del Potro 46
(30) Davydenko 29
(40) Monaco 35
(50) Montanes 33
(60) Kukushkin 24
(70) Haider-Maurer 15
(80) Gimeno-Traver 30
(90) Blake 18
(100) de-Bakher 13

Gosh it's quite a difference isn't it between de-Bakher and Djokovic! I am sure the extra travelling between various tournaments is tiring, plus the lower ranked guys don't have the same fitness teams and management guys to smooth the way, on the other hand, they are not required to do press conference after press conference or any of the other things the top guys are press ganged into.

When you actually look at miles on limbs though, there is no contest. It makes Federer's and Nadal's achievements look even more awesome when you consider how consistent they have both been tournament after tournament, year after year - and Djokovic and Murray, to a lesser degree, as well.

social1976

If you compare the tournaments played the figure is quite consistant across the entire top 100. Most players play 20ish tournaments per year. I was surprised by this as I expected lower ranked player to play significantly more tournaments than more highly ranked players. But as you say total matches played does not include qualifying matches and this will be more significant the lower the player is ranked. Although it will not involve extra travel.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

time please

I agree having team support is a big advantage to the top players but all the media attention adds extra pressure. Some players handle this attention better than others... and some players appear to love it (thinking in paticular of Djokovic who IMO visably preens when given it!).

Also whenever you look more closely at the achievements of both Federer and Nadal its obvious how "awesome" they both are.

LK I agree with you, the problem is psychologically if they didn't play these less attractive tournaments then they would perhaps regret it if they get a bad draw in the first round of a slam..

The same as you I hope that these players stop wearing themselves out just to please the organizers.... the 250 tournaments should be left for up and coming players and not the guys who are already wealthy from the sport.. we moan about not having enough "new generation" players coming to the fore.... but how can they when players ranked 10-90 are taking up the places in the lower echelon tournaments????

The thing is JM that these guys earn a good living from tennis because it is big box office and so in turn attracts sponsors who wouldn't support if the audience wasn't there. The smaller tournaments (250s) need a smattering of the top players to attract the crowds and ensure that they can keep going because they are profitable - I don't suppose there are many packed courts on the challenger tour. If you keep the players 10-90 out of the 250s, you are effectively calling time on that tournament. (certainly you can expect prize money to take a huge dive and reduce the number of players who can afford to turn professional)

Besides, the up and coming guys get to test their strength on the way up - without that, how are they going to progress?

hawkeye wrote:Some players handle this attention better than others... and some players appear to love it (thinking in paticular of Djokovic who IMO visably preens when given it!).

yes, indeed - bless him! Djokovic is certainly no shrinking violet!

This always makes me laugh:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AISiYX-F6gQ