Shapovolov Zverev Kyrgios

[Carey]

These guys play different, and it's nice to see. If Shap can continue to play
like that he'll be formidable. He gets around the ball very well.

A refreshing change from the safety-first crew.

[SliceAndDice]

Hopefully the drought of new talent (with multi-slam winning potential) is over.

[TennisGuy]

Meh.. I don't see it that way.

At the moment I don't see anything phenomenal about these three players.
Are they talented? Sure they are.

They have simply arrived at the right time.

The big four won't be a serious factor for winning slams in a few years
or sooner.

Someone has to win them. These guys are just the most likely ones to
seize the opportunity.

They don't need any magical skills, that the big four possess(ed).
Just enough to get the job done.

Of the three guys you mentioned, I like Zverev best.

[Carey]

Point taken. I do see quite a difference in these three from the risk-averse
games of Nadal/Djok/Murray and their clones. Probably not a new Federer among
them, but still bright spots on the tennis scene.

[Court_1]

They are the three to watch. Kyrgios has the talent but he doesn't care so I'm not sure how far he will go. Zverev appears to have the drive but he's a giant and a bit of ball-basher with no plan B. Shap has the more interesting game than Zverev does IMO.
Let's hope Zverev and Shap continue to have the motivation to be the best they can be and can continue to take it to the top guys. I don't remember the youngsters being this bad for so long with nobody stepping up. It's ridiculous.

[undecided]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 9:29:08 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:

Leaving out Thiem?

[Whisper]

That's putting it mildly. The prizemoney structure needs to be
overhauled to reward effort/achievement. Something like you only
'unlock' the top tier prizemoney if you achieve certain milestones, like
beating 1 of the top 4 over a given timeframe (1 yr?). So for eg a
player who does beat a top 4 in the past 12 months will get 100% of the
przemoney for reaching a certain rd, otherwise they get 80%.

Say the prize for winning a tune-up is max 200k. You only get the 200k
if you have beaten a top 4 in previous 12 months, otherwise you get
160k. That will incentivize the player to really try & knock off a big
4 rather than mailing it in.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[John Liang]

How much prize money do you think for a player winning GS without beating a top 4 player in a 12 months period?

[*skriptis]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

Your proposal seems complicated. Here's the thing.

I don't have an idea how to do exact prize money distribution, but
looking at career prize money of major players from the past
decade and before, I see Berdych has earned cca 25 millions.


Yes, he's an elite player. But e.g. Federer or Djokovic are creme
de la creme and they have earned over 100 millions.


Look at the most elite active ATP players.

GS+atpfinals+masters+oly

51 - Federer (19+6+26+0)
47 - Djokovic (12+5+30+0)
46 - Nadal (15+0+30+1)
20 - Murray (3+1+14+2)
4 - Wawrinka (3+0+1+0)
2 - Cilic (1+0+1+0)
2 - Tsonga (0+0+2+0)
1 - del Potro (1+0+0+0)
1 - Haas (0+0+1+0)
1 - Berdych (0+0+1+0)
1 - Robredo (0+0+1+0)
1 - Ferrer (0+0+1+0)
1 - Zverev (0+0+1+0)


I'm not against Berdych. Not everyone can become a slam, or
especially multi slam winner.
But this guy is not winning titles at all. Someone like Murray at
least wins a lot.

I think that a very consistent but essentially limited guy like
Berdych should not retire and have 25% of Federer's or Djokovic's
tournament prize money. He's not at 25% of their success.


I think titles, not just slam titles, but masters titles too
should be the lucrative stuff, and earlier rounds, finals, semis
etc should be less rewarded.

The surplus of the saved money (I most certainly don't think it
should go to Federer or Nadal beyond what they have now) should
be redirected to lower ATP events to help broaden the pool.


Basically, the problem I see in tennis is that the middle class
(Berdych, Ferrer, etc) are very well fed.
Give that to the lower classes.


E.g. slam title, one million prize money
Then runner up, 100 thousands
Not 500 thousands or more like it is now.








--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Whisper]

Good point. Obviously the system needs to be fine tuned. A slam winner
deserves full prizemoney no matter who he beats. It's these
professional clowns running around cashing checks & treating this like a
business, disrespecting tennis fans with poor effort etc



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[Whisper]

Something needs to be changed to make these guys really value a win over
a big player, winning a slam etc. Perhaps if they see one of their
peers getting 20% more prizemoney for reaching same rd, just because
they beat Rafa/Fed/Djoker in last 12 months, might give them a kick in
the pants. Obviously they don't have the mentality of a true tennis
champion & losses are shrugged off without a 2nd thought. Putting extra
$$$ into the equation would have to improve things imo.