People committing to 2 tournaments in the same week
I don't think this is a huge issue but maybe there should be a punishment to discourage people from doing that. I don't think anyone would do it deliberately because it's not possible to get away with it - at the very latest Gavnich would notice it when he entered the tournament results into the rankings system. So obviously it can only happen for two reasons - either the person is a newbie
and doesn't know this rule yet or he/she is just careless
and forgot about another commitment in the same week. If it's a newbie then no punishment needed - just explain the rules. If it's not a newbie (let's define a newbie as a player with no ranking) then I propose this:
- If the player himself notices the double commitment before either tournament has started (that includes qualifying) and withdraws from one tournament then no penalty (because no harm done).
- Otherwise player gets disqualified from all that week's tournaments. (And by 'otherwise' I mean if either tournament has already started or a manager or someone else caught the double commitment.)
What to do in Round 1 if there are no LLs and neither player in a match sends picks?
This applies to both qualifying round 1 and main draw round 1. The current rule is that the higher ranked player advances. I wouldn't mind if instead the best loser in round 1 got the win. This would mean changing the draw after the round is done, yes, and I'm not a big fan of that because it would never happen in real life. But I believe it could work well for TT. But if the first round lasts 2 days then this rule doesn't apply.
Commitments for challengers during GS "In if out of GS"
The trouble with this kind of commitment is that it requires a lot of work from the manager to check who's in and who's out of the Grand Slam so the suggestion is to allow commitments only after the player is out of the GS. I honestly never thought about this but it seems like a great idea to me. Wait a minute... No, I think there is a problem after all. ibreak4coffee mentioned that the commitment window would be very small but I don't think it's a problem because you have to be online every day anyway to send picks for the Grand Slam so you can just as well commit to a challenger if you lose.
The problem with the proposed rule is that it would reduce the number of players who could play these 2nd week challengers. Normally, you can play CH qualifying if you lose in the third round or earlier in the GS, and you can play CH main draw if you lose in the 4th round. If the rule was changed then all those people who lost in the 4th round would not be able to play challengers
because the qualifying would have already started so they wouldn't be able to commit. So because of this reason I have to say No to the proposed rule change.
Incentives for managers
I don't think any WCs or anything like that is necessary. The only thing that would be nice is to have a table which shows who managed what tournaments during a year. This table already exists for earlier years but it hasn't been updated for 2009 or 2010 and I think it would be really great if someone did it. It would be one of the best incentives for me personally.
Should LEs be seeded?
Yes, I believe the current situation is fine.
How long does a player have to be inactive before he/she is ineligible for a PR?
18 months would be fine.
CH entries: Top 30 singles
I think everyone should be able to play challengers whenever they feel like it. Currently Top 30 singles players are not allowed to play challengers on 'normal' weeks and I think that should be changed because I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to commit as LEs. It would not change anything really because in 99% cases Top 30 players will not want to play challengers because of the low points. But occasionally someone might want to play - either because it's his home town challenger or because he wants to play doubles with a friend or just for the fun of it. If this Top 30 player commits as LE then he's not stealing any spots from lower ranked players so why not let him?
Together with this change, I also propose to turn Top 30 into Top 40 because all Top 40 players should be able to find a spot in an ATP event so there's no reason for them to play challengers. But if you decide against the first part of my suggestion then please keep it Top 30 only.
I like Goldenoldie's idea about basing seedings on the same entry list, that is, rankings from 2 weeks ago instead of rankings from 1 week ago. I agree, it's very tiring for the manager to have to go through all the rankings list again (both singles and doubles) and usually there are very little changes. Please agree to this idea, it would make managing easier