Mens Tennis Forums banner

Choose!

  • Blue Clay

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wood

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ice

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gold

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some Metal based surface

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Carpet

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Water

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • No Surface - players hover

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Glass

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

MTF suggestions to reform the ATP and tennis in general

44K views 598 replies 231 participants last post by  Looner 
#1 · (Edited)
Apart from dumping Round Robin to the cesspool where it came from and since our Fearless Leader of the ATP Mr Disney Etienne de Villiers cares really what the fans think.

It's time for some suggestions that Mr Disney should listen to, since he wants to make tennis more interesting for the masses.

- Instead of a TB, they should have a serving contest where they place a cone in the service box and the person who hits it the most will win. (GWH)

- It should be decided on a round of Greco-Roman wrestling. Labadze will then proceed to become the marketing dream of the ATP. (Merton)

- If Tursunov is playing, then he must be allowed to have a blog off against his opponent except if it is Federer or Nadal, cause they have to be in the final. (GWH)

- As for the clay they have to do as many 360s while sliding laterally and forwards within a minute and have a tennis ball balanced on their head. (GWH)

- Instead of hitting a cone, they should bring out a lion in a cage on the service line - most balls served into the lions mouth wins. Bring on the Spectacle, Disney boy... and serve that cotton candy... (TenHound)

- Another idea to replace the tie-break: they pick 2 random spectators in the crowd (one for each player). The 1st player who gets his serve returned by the spectator loses.

OR

No spectator involved but they can do something like the penalty kicks in football (since Mr. Disney loves the WC system). If the opponent can't return the serve it counts as a goal. (Saumon)
 
See less See more
#446 · (Edited)
"Bronze Medal" or 3rd Place in Tournments

In the semis of Roland Garros this year, the big four were present and I expected all the matches to the final would be fun to watch

Djokovic vs. Federer
Nadal vs. Murray
and finally
Nadal vs. Federer

I think it would be good for the game, tournament, players and supporters to have a third place or a "bronze medal" as the case in the Olympics

wouldn't it be interesting to watch Djokovic vs. Murray competing for a third place, earning more points and extra cash?

thought ?
 
#448 ·
Re: "Bronze Medal" or 3rd Place in Tournments

No. Roger, Novak and Andy are all losers. It doesn't matter who places what, all that matters is who wins the tournament and that's Rafa.
 
#450 ·
Re: "Bronze Medal" or 3rd Place in Tournments

nah. It's natural for players to wrap it up when they lose. It is natural for ranking points, statistics about win/loss and pretty much everything to NOT have a third place match.

IF you have a third place match you also give an extra chance to SF players to earn more points/money. Why should they? Should losing QFists also get placement matches? This is almost like suggesting there should be a round robin like in WTF for tournaments 1st stage. It would complicate an already well-working system
 
#452 · (Edited)
How Would You Speed Up the Game and Make the Matches Shorter

its clear that the sport is becoming more and more demanding with each passing year.

and the casualties continue to mount in terms of player injuries. this seriously threatens their longevity in the sport.

if you were in charge of speeding up the game and the matches, what items would be on your action agenda?

what steps can be taken to make the matches shorter?

we have seen already that we no longer have best of 5 sets finals at the masters series events. lately johnny mac has jumped on the bandwagon for this cause as well.

it is only a matter of time before some additional steps are taken to speed up the game in terms of shortening the time of the matches. there are some other spill over benefits to this: masses often find the matches too long. shortening the time of the matches may be one way to increase our sport`s mass appeal.

what might those steps be and which ones would you agree with?


the floor is at your disposal. have at it and have fun with this.
 
#453 ·
Re: Slow Down the Courts

They should make tennis triathlon :D Play one set on clay, then players should run to the second court (whoever is late gets penalized!), where they would play second set on hard court, while decider would be played on grass. Or maybe they should run to the other court on changeover... I'm still working out the rules :p
 
#454 ·
Re: Slow Down the Courts

They should make tennis triathlon :D Play one set on clay, then players should run to the second court (whoever is late gets penalized!), where they would play second set on hard court, while decider would be played on grass. Or maybe they should run to the other court on changeover... I'm still working out the rules :p
Loser of set gets to decide the next surface.
 
#456 ·
I've already said it:

Reduce the season by about 2 weeks, make IW and Miami 64 player draws.
IW and Miami sped up to medium/fast hard.
Give Madrid back to Hamburg. Slow down the big clay events.
SPEED UP WIMBLEDON
Speed up the US Open back to the way it was
Take Shanghai's TMS away and give it back to Madrid (indoor hard)
Bring back carpet and make Basel, Moscow, St Petersburg and Valencia all Gerflor, and bring back purple Gerflor for Paris
Give Shanghai the TMC and old surface back
5 set finals in Masters Series back


Basically you can see all what I'd do. Undoing all recently SHITE changes made by the ATP.

People who fix things that aren't broken are the most irritating people on Earth.

Slow-ass hard courts that are slower than clay should NOT exist. Not only is the tennis bad, but the sticky way the balls bounce is disgusting for a hard court.
 
#457 ·
Proposal: New WTF Format

Hi Guys,

Wouldn't it be great to have a tournament where
- there are no draws, thus completely eliminating the element of luck.
- the top players have to play every other top player, rather than just the player who has landed in his group.

e.g Currently Nadal/Federer are not guaranteed to play against Djokovic/Murray, and vice-versa.

Thus here is what I propose,
- Reduce the number of players that qualify for WTF to 6 (rather than 8)
- For these 6 players, there would be no draws. Each player has to play all 5 other players.
- Then the top 4 winners get to play semifinals (1/4 and 2/3) and then finals.

Thus the winner/finalist would have to play a total of 7 matches (similar to a slam)

The main advantages would be
- there would be no luck or chance as draws are eliminated
- we would get to see guaranteed blockbuster matches irrespective of who reaches the semis or finals

The new format would be about "all top players competing against each other".

The current format is about "top players competing with some of the other top players, and then might or might not compete with other top players"
 
#460 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

Hi Guys,

Wouldn't it be great to have a tournament where
- there are no draws, thus completely eliminating the element of luck.
- the top players have to play every other top player, rather than just the player who has landed in his group.

e.g Currently Nadal/Federer are not guaranteed to play against Djokovic/Murray, and vice-versa.

Thus here is what I propose,
- Reduce the number of players that qualify for WTF to 6 (rather than 8)
- For these 6 players, there would be no draws. Each player has to play all 5 other players.
- Then the top 4 winners get to play semifinals (1/4 and 2/3) and then finals.

Thus the winner/finalist would have to play a total of 7 matches (similar to a slam)
If you'd like to have the winner/finalist to play 7 matches like in a slam, then they just have to play one another like in a round robin format. If there are 8 players, then each of them would've played a total of 7 times at least, and the one with the most matches won/most sets won/most games won will win.:shrug:
 
#458 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

There's no way the players will agree to this.

A. Because they are already moaning about the length of the season and won't agree to play MORE matches.

B. The 8 players get a wealthy appearance fee for making the WTF, the players won't agree to effectively reduce their chances of getting a hefty pay check for qualifying by reducing the spots from 8 to 6, and the way in which the top 4 are so dominant just now it will just be a case of the rich getting richer.

Nice idea in theory but the player's have too much power these days.
 
#459 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

Better idea.

128 player draw. All players play all other players, 127 matches for each player. This would ensure we got a true gauge of who is really number one. 16,129 total matches, so it would take a little bit longer than your average tournament, but it would eliminate the need for these arbitrary rankings that are currently used.
 
#463 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

Better idea.

128 player draw. All players play all other players, 127 matches for each player. This would ensure we got a true gauge of who is really number one. 16,129 total matches, so it would take a little bit longer than your average tournament, but it would eliminate the need for these arbitrary rankings that are currently used.
 
#464 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

how about 2 groups of 5 players each

top 10 players qualify!

group a
1.nole
3.murray
5.ferrer
7.berdych
9.tipsy

group b
2.nadal
4.feds
6.tsonga
8.fish
10.del potro

top 4 in each group qualify for quarterfinal knockout stage, knockout stages is a grueling best of 5 sets, all the way from quarterfinals to the finals, ya baby!
 
#466 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

Tipsarevic in a Masters Cup will be officially the end of tennis :help:

Semi, or at the very least the final, should be best of 5.
 
#468 ·
Re: Proposal: New WTF Format

Consider if the Top 4 have better winning rates after the first four days of playing.

Code:
            Day 1    Day 2    Day 3    Day 4

Djokovic v. Fish     Berdych  Tsonga   Ferrer
Nadal    v. Berdych  Tsonga   Ferrer   Fish
Murray   v. Tsonga   Ferrer   Fish     Berdych
Federer  v. Ferrer   Fish     Berdych  Tsonga
The above list is based on the top 4 win each of the 4 matches (4-0), basically the higher winning ratio people will be grouped last.

Code:
Day 5

Ferrer   v. Fish     
Tsonga   v. Berdych

Djokovic v. Federer  Murray
Nadal    v. Murray   Federer
Based on winning ratio and schedule them differently. Let's say Djokovic and Murray scored better in Day 5.

Code:
Day 6

Ferrer   v. Berdych
Tsonga   v. Fish

Murray   v. Federer
Djokovic v. Nadal
If Djokovic and Federer scored better in Day 6, then whoever plays Djokovic will be placed last.

Code:
Day 7

Berdych  v. Fish
Ferrer   v. Tsonga

Nadal    v. Federer
Djokovic v. Murray
But I don't think any of the players will be willing to play 7 days.
 
#469 ·
How about this idea?

Top 10 qualify for the WTF, then the 10 players are placed in 2 groups of 5 players each, the top 4 players in each group crossover to play against the top 4 from the other group for a single elimation knockout stage. the knockout stages from quarterfinals all to the finals is a grueling best of five sets. This way, a player plays at least 4 matches and the potential champion would have to win 7 matches like in a grand slam to win it all.
 
#470 ·
How would you change the surfaces, balls, etc. if you were in charge?

Here's how I would like to see this thread go. I'll list all of the Slams and the Master's events. You need to:

1) Talk about the court surface as it is right now / as of the last event played.

2) Talk about how it was in the past (perhaps when they "got it right").

3) Talk about the changes you would make that specific court surface for this year

4) Talk about what we could expect from your proposed change (ie, that clown Djokovic would get beat first round if we played the Australian Open on ice with rubber super balls like they did in the mythic 2005 fed/safin match, or whatever).

5) Move to the next event; repeat

Repeat this procedure for proposed ball changes or anything else you want to change.

The idea here is that, you have to know something about the courts, balls, etc being used now. It would really help if you knew something about how things were "in the past". This way, you can make useful relative comparisons. Make useful comments about how slow tournament X should be relative to the rest of the tournaments. How in "the past", it was so great because everything was so perfect. The balance was spot on. Etc.

-Australian Open
-Indian Wells
-Miami
-Monte Carlo
-Madrid
-Rome
-French Open
-Wimbledon
-Canada
-Cincy
-US Open
-Shanghai
-Paris

Finally, for bounus points, talk about how you would change "anything else" (racquets, strings, drug testing, time wasting, anything else you want).

Please, try to make a few intelligent, well thought out comments. I'm sure we'll have plenty of "speed up the courts". Fine. Do you want all courts sped up? How fast? Should they all be the same speed? Should even Cincy be sped up? How fast do we want things? Do we just want to see the biggest servers and biggest one-shot makers winning?

I'm really curious what people want to see? In the past MANY people bemoaned "clay court specialists" and how they couldn't do anything on other surfaces? Do we want to go back to something more like that? Where surfaces are all as different as we can make them?

For even more bonus points, see if you can take into account the fact that the top players are quite adaptive. Think for example of the drubbing Nadal took at US Open 2009 at the hands of Del Potro. Has the surface changed THAT MUCH between 2009 and today? Are players really simply not able to hit through the court anymore? Or is some of it the fact that players learn from past mistkakes an implement new game plans?

Let's see if we get some good over-arching ideas or just the same old garbage. I suspect that most of the posters will not be able to make intelligent relative comparisons based on actual facts (but we'll see.........).
 
#474 · (Edited)
Re: How would you change the surfaces, balls, etc. if you were in charge?

1. I would add, or at least made ATP 500 grass court tournament (London, Halle), or Masters 1000 grass tournament to calendar.

2. Compulsory official review (hawkeye) in 1000 (at least 3 courts) and 500 tournaments (hello Memphis) and also on centre courts of 250´s.

3. Better prize money on challengers, players sometimes rather bet on themselves than compete in tournament.

4. Made some changes in tournaments categories - Memphis to 250, Queens(Halle) to 500 etc.

5. Change some 250´s ATP destinations every year to double placed tournaments, especially in tournaments like Zagreb, Bucharest, Casablanca, etc. (for example - Zagreb/Bratislava, Bucharest/Prague or so)

( these ideas was written quickly, clear brainstorming :) )
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top