Article - Should the ATP Restore Masters Finals to Best of Five Sets? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Article - Should the ATP Restore Masters Finals to Best of Five Sets?

laurie-1
04-25-2010, 10:42 PM
Article I published in Bleacher Report today. Read on......

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/384257-should-the-atp-restore-masters-finals-to-best-of-5-sets

I am usually a big fan of the Masters tournaments. I’ve attended Paris Bercy twice over the last few years and have always enjoyed watching Indian Wells and Miami on TV, along with Rome, Canada, and Cincinnati.

However, since 2008, I’ve found that I’ve lost interest in the Masters tournaments and I’ve been wondering why that’s the case.

I’ve come to the conclusion that they have lost some prestige due to the current format, and the Slams have more weight than ever before (which will please the ITF of course!).

In 1990 the ATP had a revamp of the calendar and brought in the Super Nine series culminating with the end of year ATP Championships, which took place in Germany from 1990 to 1999.

The Super Nine events incorporated some of the biggest tournaments in the world outside of the Grand Slams, including Italian Open, German Open, Canadian Open, Monte Carlo and Cincinnati.

Miami, Indian Wells, Stuttgart Indoors and Paris Indoors rounded out the nine tournaments. The ATP Championships first took place in Frankfurt from 1990 to 1995 and Hanover from 1996 to 1999.

In 2000, the ATP had another revamp and renamed the Super Nines to the Masters series, awarding 500 points for a win. Under the old system the winner got 350 points.

The contract to show the matches on pay television went to Swiss company ISL, who seemed to overstretch themselves and went bust in 2001.

Some of the traditional names of the tournaments were also changed, therefore the Canadian Open became the Rogers Cup, Italian Open became Rome Masters and German Open became Hamburg Masters.

To me, the name changes seem to take some of the prestige away from these events.

In 2009, the ATP had yet another revamp with some historical events like Hamburg and Monte Carlo downgraded and new events like Shanghai and Madrid given new status with the winner now given 1000 points for a win.

I used to view the Masters tournaments as great preparation for young players to go on to slam success.

With many of the finals played as best of five sets, it was good experience for players getting into important matches at slam level.

Players like Agassi, Federer, Djokovic, Safin, Nadal, Muster and others all won Super Nine/Masters events before winning Slam titles.

I used to really look forward to some of the finals, some of the best matches ever played were at the Super nine/Masters level in the finals.

However, over the past two years I can’t think of any final I have looked forward to and I can’t remember any final that would be considered memorable...over 20 finals in a two year period.

And as far as I’m concerned, that’s due to the fact that finals are now best of three sets only all year round.

The finals are usually quick straight sets affairs which are over in just over an hour. The interesting thing is that these short finals have coincided with yet another explosion of prize money.

So I feel that spectators who attend the finals and television viewers who pay subscription to see these matches are getting short-changed.

Another aspect to this is that Masters finals are no longer good preparation for slam success because they are like any other best of three-set ATP tournament.

I think one of the reasons Andy Murray plays so passively in Grand Slam finals is because he hasn’t played any best-of-five sets Masters finals where he could find out more about himself and be prepared to try different strategies and tactics at the level just below the slams, for instance how to come back when down in a long match.

I’ve also found that the end of year ATP Championships are also proving a profound disappointment because matches on finals day are finishing way too quickly during the last two years.

Television viewers are been short changed as well because TV will not show the doubles finals.

I went to the O2 Arena last year for round-robin matches and the atmosphere was incredible, a best-of-five set final would have been a fitting way to end the event. The players are strong enough and remunerated well enough to play a best-of-five set final.

If I remember correctly, previous Executive Chairman Etiene DeVilliers pushed to have the Masters finals reduced because of player fatigue. To me, that’s a hollow excuse and has taken credibility away from the events.

If Etiene really wanted to make a difference, he should have pushed harder to get the Tennis season reduced to 10 months so players can get a proper break as in other sports, but the ATP took the easy way out in this instance.

Hamburg and Monte Carlo were downgraded but Madrid was given a rather strange slot just before the French Open, when it appears Madrid would actually like to rival the French Open as a Grand Slam tournament in the future.

I propose that some finals in Miami, Indian Wells, Rome, Paris Bercy, Shanghai, and the end of year ATP Championships be restored to best-of-five sets to bring back some prestige to these events, I wonder if you agree with me?

To end the article, I thought I would take a quick look at some of the great five sets finals since 1990:

1996 Stuttgart final – Becker defeated Sampras in five sets of great attacking tennis.

1996 ATP final – Widely considered as the greatest indoor match in the Open era, four hours long, a great way to end the 1996 season and Sampras getting revenge over Becker after losing in Stuttgart.

1995 Monte Carlo final – Muster denied Becker in five sets, Becker would never win a clay event.

1998 ATP final – an all-Spanish affair in Hanover with Corretja defeating Moya in five sets

2000 Miami final – although four sets, it was three hours, 30 minutes long between Sampras and Kuerten and the atmosphere was like a Davis Cup tie. The tennis was incredible too.

2002 Masters cup final – Hewitt defeated Ferrero in a great five-set thriller in Shanghai.

2005 Miami final – Federer came from two sets down to beat Nadal, this was when everyone realised Nadal was going to give Federer a lot of trouble!

2005 Rome – Nadal and Coria played a great five-set final.

2005 Masters Cup final – Nalbandian came from two sets down to beat Federer in four hours

2006 Rome final – Five hours long! And Federer had match point but lost against Nadal; unfortunately, this was the beginning of the end for five-set finals at Masters level.

Can you think of any other great Masters finals? I would be more than happy to hear about them in the Comments section.

rocketassist
04-25-2010, 10:49 PM
Yes!

Certinfy
04-25-2010, 10:51 PM
Yeah, makes it feel like a bigger tournament in a way :shrug:

Roamed
04-25-2010, 10:57 PM
If they don't do it in the Masters series, they should definitely do it for the World Tour finals... the only reason subsequent tiredness could be an issue there is for the DC final :shrug:

tennishero
04-25-2010, 11:05 PM
everyone agrees yes, except some of the players.

Filo V.
04-25-2010, 11:09 PM
I don't necessarily agree yes. I don't agree no either. There are reasons why it was moved from best of 5 to best of 3, that are legitimate. Also, sometimes you have to take into consideration the players playing, since they are the ones who are actually supplying the product. I'm 50-50 with it, but it really doesn't matter either way for me.

croat123
04-25-2010, 11:13 PM
I really like the best of five for the finals. You can't really match the drama of a match going deep into the fifth and these are huge matches worth tons of points/money

oranges
04-25-2010, 11:17 PM
Most definitely yes

l_mac
04-25-2010, 11:21 PM
They don't play 5 set matches in the rest of the tournament. I don't see the point of suddenly playing 5 sets in the final.

habibko
04-26-2010, 12:02 AM
great list of matches, and best of 5 sets finals should definitely come back, at least for the TMC (now known as WTF).

tennishero
04-26-2010, 12:06 AM
I don't necessarily agree yes. I don't agree no either. There are reasons why it was moved from best of 5 to best of 3, that are legitimate. Also, sometimes you have to take into consideration the players playing, since they are the ones who are actually supplying the product. I'm 50-50 with it, but it really doesn't matter either way for me.

and we are the ones paying for the product (and their wages), without the public these tournaments wouldnt exist.

andy neyer
04-26-2010, 12:16 AM
Yes, and also eliminate the byes.

In some aspects MS were more difficult to win than GS. For one thing they could be more physically draining given that you only had one off day and for another thing the chances of having to face better players were bigger than in a GS.

Ivanatis
04-26-2010, 12:25 AM
Would be great, but don't forget: it's the ATP. They don't make sense that often.

federernadalfan
04-26-2010, 12:25 AM
best of five sets should definitely be restored, but it probably won't in the end

Jimnik
04-26-2010, 01:52 AM
Yes.

And IW, and Miami.

barbadosan
04-26-2010, 01:57 AM
Yes. The Masters built to a real climax with the 5-set final. Now, the finals tend to seem - ordinary.

DJ Soup
04-26-2010, 02:12 AM
Definitively lost prestige.

LinkMage
04-26-2010, 02:18 AM
Masters are MM tournaments these days without the best of 5 finals and those clownish 1st round Byes.

Get rid of byes and best of 3 finals.

Arkulari
04-26-2010, 02:20 AM
I'm torn, because I loved the best of 5 finals, but the tour is already incredibly physically taxing, so even if the quality of the events would be better, then all players would suffer even more, specially on clay when all three masters are really close in time

n8
04-26-2010, 02:36 AM
I know this isn't the most popular opinion, but I think they should stay as best of 3. As long as there are so many compulsory events, top players need shorter finals to recover for upcoming tournaments. With best of 5 finals (and no byes), it can actually make sense for players to loose in the semi-finals so they can prepare better for the following event (especially in the case of back-to-back Masters like Canada-Cincinnati).

I also agree with first round byes as these paragraphs from my article (http://statracket.net/?view=articles/4wins.html) show:

One such change was reducing the draw sizes at all clay Masters Series, as well as the Masters Series in Canada and Cincinnati, from 64 to 56. This gave the top eight seeds at least one more day’s rest at these events from 2007 onwards. This was particularly important as two clay court Masters (usually Rome and Hamburg) and both summer North American Masters (Canada and Cincinnati) were held in back to back weeks.

Before 2007, players who went well in Rome (Canada) were almost destined to be eliminated early or pull out of Hamburg (Cincinnati), simply due to over-playing. In 2005 Hamburg, Rome winner (Nadal) withdrew, while the Rome semi-finalists (Ferrer and Agassi) lose first round. In 2006 Hamburg, three of the four Rome semi-finalists (Federer, Nadal, Nalbandian) withdrew, while the remaining Rome semi-finalist (Monfils) lost in the first round.

Cincinnati followed a similar pattern. In 2005, Canada winner (Nadal) lost in the first round, while the finalist (Agassi) withdrew. In 2006 Cincinnati, Canada winner (Federer) lost in the second round, while finalist (Gasquet), lost in the first round. Since 2007, the story has been remarkably different. In 2007, Nadal made the final of Hamburg having just won Rome and in 2008 Djokovic makes the semis of Hamburg having just won Rome. In 2007 Cincinnati, Canada finalist Federer takes the title, while in 2008, Nadal makes the semis having won Canada a week earlier.

oranges
04-26-2010, 02:48 AM
^^ So why not disparage the schedule, rather than the best of five finals? (And byes are just plain wrong from the fairness perspective for other players)

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 02:51 AM
It's the top players that don't want it.

Pirata.
04-26-2010, 03:16 AM
YES :yeah:

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 03:26 AM
1st round Byes can fuck off.

andy neyer
04-26-2010, 04:24 AM
^^ So why not disparage the schedule, rather than the best of five finals? (And byes are just plain wrong from the fairness perspective for other players)

Yes, exactly.

oranges
04-26-2010, 04:24 AM
I guess we should be thankful that slams are not under ATP control. There would be six of them by now, played best of three of course to fit the schedule and the top 16 seeds would get byes for the first two rounds :p

Jimnik
04-26-2010, 04:36 AM
1st round Byes can fuck off.
Thought you were a Bye fan.

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 04:40 AM
Thought you were a fan of Bye.

Time and place for everything.

n8
04-26-2010, 05:06 AM
Just to clarify, fundamentally I don't think byes are a good thing. However, given the schedule, they are a good idea in some events.

-edit- Plus byes do actually increase fairness in some respects. Unseeded players now don't have to play the very top players in round one. For example, some players would be relieved that they can't face Nadal in the first round of Monte Carlo, Rome or Madrid.

oranges
04-26-2010, 06:51 AM
Just to clarify, fundamentally I don't think byes are a good thing. However, given the schedule, they are a good idea in some events.

-edit- Plus byes do actually increase fairness in some respects. Unseeded players now don't have to play the very top players in round one. For example, some players would be relieved that they can't face Nadal in the first round of Monte Carlo, Rome or Madrid.

You must be joking, I think those left out of the MD due to byes would rather play them in the first round then not play at all. As for fairness, all of the players have fatigue, not just top 8 seeds and it's not necessarily the top 8 who have made the latest stages of the previous tournament or will make it in the one where they have a bye. And even when they are, why should they play one match fewer than 9th seed or anyone else for that matter. As if that was not enough, they apparently get their 10 points if they lose their first match, as if they won R1. Others must not only get their ass on court and play, but actually win a match for those points. How's that for fairness? Sportsmanship and fairness down the drain and straight into the gutter with the little invention called a bye.

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 06:59 AM
Basically this is a trade off between the ATP and the top brass of players. They are looking out for themselves and the ATP looks out for them in the way that they can get more cash.

Goldenoldie
04-26-2010, 07:02 AM
I would go further and say that semi-finals should also be best of 5, particularly at IW and Miami where the matches are spread over more than a week.

n8
04-26-2010, 07:15 AM
You must be joking, I think those left out of the MD due to byes would rather play them in the first round then not play at all. As for fairness, all of the players have fatigue, not just top 8 seeds and it's not necessarily the top 8 who have made the latest stages of the previous tournament or will make it in the one where they have a bye. And even when they are, why should they play one match fewer than 9th seed or anyone else for that matter. As if that was not enough, they apparently get their 10 points if they lose their first match, as if they won R1. Others must not only get their ass on court and play, but actually win a match for those points. How's that for fairness? Sportsmanship and fairness down the drain and straight into the gutter with the little invention called a bye.

You'll find that seeds who loose their 2nd round match (after a 1st round bye) only get 10 points, as if they lost in the 1st round. If you don't believe me, check out Youzhny's (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Mikhail-Youzhny.aspx?t=rb) (7th seed, 2nd round loser) and Baghdatis' (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Marcos-Baghdatis.aspx?t=rb) (1st round loser) ranking point breakdown for Monte Carlo.

So people complain about byes and three set finals but I seem to recall many people being very unimpressed when Robredo d. Stepanek in the Hamburg final in 2006 after both Nadal and Federer withdrew due to fatigue (from a gruelling Rome a week earlier).

andy neyer
04-26-2010, 07:48 AM
I would go further and say that semi-finals should also be best of 5, particularly at IW and Miami where the matches are spread over more than a week.

IW and Miami should last a week only and forget about the 96 players draw.

andy neyer
04-26-2010, 07:57 AM
You'll find that seeds who loose their 2nd round match (after a 1st round bye) only get 10 points, as if they lost in the 1st round. If you don't believe me, check out Youzhny's (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Mikhail-Youzhny.aspx?t=rb) (7th seed, 2nd round loser) and Baghdatis' (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Marcos-Baghdatis.aspx?t=rb) (1st round loser) ranking point breakdown for Monte Carlo.

So people complain about byes and three set finals but I seem to recall many people being very unimpressed when Robredo d. Stepanek in the Hamburg final in 2006 after both Nadal and Federer withdrew due to fatigue (from a gruelling Rome a week earlier).

There's not really much someone can say to defend the byes, imo. It's totally unfair anyway you wanna slice it.

As for the 5-set finals, I kind of understand it. I remember that I was in favour of changing them to 3 set finals back then (not because the top players could be tired for other events but simply because I found it kind of clownish to have best-of-3-set matches for the whole tourney and then suddenly have a best-of-five-sets match in the final)... However, nowadays I've changed my mind simply due to the lack of prestige that MS have today.

Still, I wouldn't mind that much if the best-of-three-sets system in finals is maintained but I definitely would like to see the byes eliminated for good in all ATP events.

Commander Data
04-26-2010, 08:36 AM
Yes.

oranges
04-26-2010, 08:49 AM
You'll find that seeds who loose their 2nd round match (after a 1st round bye) only get 10 points, as if they lost in the 1st round. If you don't believe me, check out Youzhny's (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Mikhail-Youzhny.aspx?t=rb) (7th seed, 2nd round loser) and Baghdatis' (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Marcos-Baghdatis.aspx?t=rb) (1st round loser) ranking point breakdown for Monte Carlo.

So people complain about byes and three set finals but I seem to recall many people being very unimpressed when Robredo d. Stepanek in the Hamburg final in 2006 after both Nadal and Federer withdrew due to fatigue (from a gruelling Rome a week earlier).

My mistake, those 10 points are indeed for first round loss, but that would really be only the icing on the cake.

As for second point, as if the problem with fatigue, tanking, sub par performance, you name it, has been resolved by byes and three set finals. I'd rather have a final worthy of a masters and seek a (better) solution in some other way. Why are we to take it as the gospel that the schedule, the rules who must play what and when, etc, are not to be touched and it's preferable to A) create unfair circumstance, which is on contradiction with what sports in general are about in its essence B) diminish the prestige of the event and deprive the fans of classic five set finals C) all that while not really resolving what it set to resolve.

Forehander
04-26-2010, 09:25 AM
It's true. Masters tournament became garbage after they took away the best of 5 sets. Good article

ZaZoo)
04-26-2010, 09:50 AM
I'd like to see final in best of 5 in London (WTF).

duong
04-26-2010, 10:26 AM
My opinion : definitely not, and that's definitely not in the trend of things.

I don't want to see Nadal retiring next week because of a huge 5-sets final as he did in 2005 and 2006 after Roma final.

Or even worse : him not taking part in a Madrid because he anticipates a long final.

He already withdraws for care after several hugely easy wins in Monte-Carlo :lol:

I don't want to see Robredo winning a much devalued Hamburg :rolleyes:

Djokovic and Nadal can already play 4 hours for 3 sets :lol:
... and then talk and talk that they lost all of their summer because of that match :lol:

Considering the current trend, you should rather think of supporting Davis Cup as it is, if you are attached to tradition and 5 setter-matches ;)

duong
04-26-2010, 10:34 AM
To me, the name changes seem to take some of the prestige away from these events.

yes, but yet that's money : that's why now people go to the "Sony-Ericsson open" or "BNP PAribas Open" or "McDonald giant cheeseburger open" :haha:

The ATP Championships first took place in Frankfurt from 1990 to 1995 and Hanover from 1996 to 1999.

The "Masters tournament" started in the 70s and has a much longer and prestigious tradition than this, they changed the name several times but don't let you influenced by this marketing language (actually it was even more prestigious at the time when it was in the Madison Square Garden)

n8
04-26-2010, 10:44 AM
Masters Series finals changed to best of 3 in 2007 (apart from Miami?), not 2008. I think there have been some good 3 set finals in the last few years.

Montreal 2007: Djokovic d. Federer 7-6 2-6 7-6
Paris 2007: Nalbandian d. Federer 1-6 6-3 6-3
Hamburg 2008: Nadal d. Federer 7-5 6-7 6-3

(It is just a coincidence that Federer lost all three :)) However, I see your point that these finals may have been even better had they been best of 5. This Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000) provides a list of all Masters Series finals (since 1990).

Apophis
04-26-2010, 10:44 AM
They don't play 5 set matches in the rest of the tournament. I don't see the point of suddenly playing 5 sets in the final.

I agree with this. Even though I would at first sight prefer a best of five final, I think it is unfair to use a different format in the final. It is like swimming the Olympic final over 150 meter after 100 meter series and semis.

In theory, a best of five 'specialist' (e.g. with above average endurance) may have been eliminated during the best of three match stage, while a best of three 'specialist' would underperform in the final.

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 10:45 AM
yes, but yet that's money : that's why now people go to the "Sony-Ericsson open" or "BNP PAribas Open" or "McDonald giant cheeseburger open" :haha:



The "Masters tournament" started in the 70s and has a much longer and prestigious tradition than this, they changed the name several times but don't let you influenced by this marketing language (actually it was even more prestigious at the time when it was in the Madison Square Garden)

Yes I knew that, but I wanted to focus on the ATP tour post 1990. I was thinking whether to discuss what it was pre 1990 but on Bleacher Report I have some constraints about lengths of articles so I just have to make a few choices now and again of what to put. Thanks

Merton
04-26-2010, 10:48 AM
It will not happen because the deal was to have first round byes and a best of 3 final in exchange for the players committing to playing all the masters events. The deal is backed by the threat of punishment if a top player just withdraws from an event without injury is to ban him from his next best event. Will that work? No, because the top player withdrawing will cite injury anyway. Then the tournament director screams bloody murder but so what? The punishment is supposed to occur in the future, if executed the future tournament where the top player is banned will just lose revenues from not having the top player.

Conclusion: The punishment will never happen and the entire deal was a grant/gift/perk from the coalition of tournament directors (read: ATP) to the top players.

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 10:48 AM
Masters Series finals changed to best of 3 in 2007 (apart from Miami?), not 2008. I think there have been some good 3 set finals in the last few years.

Montreal 2007: Djokovic d. Federer 7-6 2-6 7-6
Paris 2007: Nalbandian d. Federer 1-6 6-3 6-3
Hamburg 2008: Nadal d. Federer 7-5 6-7 6-3

(It is just a coincidence that Federer lost all three :)) However, I see your point that these finals may have been even better had they been best of 5. This Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000) provides a list of all Masters Series finals (since 1990).

Thanks for that. Interesting that you do not consider there to have been a good final since May 2008, that's 2 years worth of finals.

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 10:52 AM
I guess we should be thankful that slams are not under ATP control. There would be six of them by now, played best of three of course to fit the schedule and the top 16 seeds would get byes for the first two rounds :p

You do wonder if the ATP ever got control of the Grand Slam tournaments, what would happen.

duong
04-26-2010, 10:54 AM
In some aspects MS were more difficult to win than GS. For one thing they could be more physically draining given that you only had one off day and for another thing the chances of having to face better players were bigger than in a GS.

yes ... and I think it's a good reason not to play the final in best-of-5-sets : you don't have one day off between the rounds like in grand slams (except in US Open between the semifinal and the final but everyone complains about that :lol: ).

It's just normal that Grand Slams are harder to win than Masters Series tournaments : they are the legend of tennis, and there's no reason for exhausting players for grand slams because of Masters Series :shrug:

It may be thought of 5-setter finals indoors, and especially for the Masters Cup, as indoors the game is less hard ... but have you seen the ends of seasons in the last 10 years ? always hugely disappointing with many injuries or exhausted players :shrug:

duong
04-26-2010, 11:09 AM
I would go further and say that semi-finals should also be best of 5, particularly at IW and Miami where the matches are spread over more than a week.

the planning of Indian Wells and Miami is nearly as dense as that of the other Masters Series tournaments in second week.

At least more similar to them than to Grand Slams.

gulzhan
04-26-2010, 11:10 AM
I'd be glad if they did.

duong
04-26-2010, 11:22 AM
Masters Series finals changed to best of 3 in 2007 (apart from Miami?), not 2008. I think there have been some good 3 set finals in the last few years.

Montreal 2007: Djokovic d. Federer 7-6 2-6 7-6
Paris 2007: Nalbandian d. Federer 1-6 6-3 6-3
Hamburg 2008: Nadal d. Federer 7-5 6-7 6-3

(It is just a coincidence that Federer lost all three :)) However, I see your point that these finals may have been even better had they been best of 5. This Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000) provides a list of all Masters Series finals (since 1990).

Nalbandian-Federer was in Madrid, not Paris.

To come back what Laurie says, the fact that she thinks there have been no intense Masters Series finals in the last 2 years, actually can be related to many other reasons than the fact that they gave up "best of 5 sets finals" :

- Federer being a father and a "part-time player", giving far less importance to Masters Series

- Nadal's knee problems

- Murray and in a lesser extent Djokovic realizing that his great results in Masters Series earnt him no recognition at all, and kept on suffering the sarcasms of people who said that "grand slams are the only tournaments where you should win" ... and then adapting to that

- other players seeing that and considering consequences, like Del Potro

- injuries ...

many reasons ...

interesting to note by the way that the Djokovic-Monfils which went to final set tie-break, hasn't been noted among the good Masters Series finals.

Statracket said it was a coincidence that Federer lost 3 finals he quoted, but it was not a coincidence that Federer played in all three actually :

has anybody thought of quoting the final between Murray and Djokovic in Cincinnati 2008 ?

Think of it, Laurie : Sampras-Rafter in best-of-3 you would have loved it, wouldn't you ?

Djokovic-Murray ? :haha:

Nadal-Djokovic in Monte-Carlo 2009 was also a great match imo :shrug:

Imagine Djokovic and Monfils would have played 5 sets : would you have said that it was a great final ?

Do you have great memories of Berdych-Ljubicic or Davydenko-Stepanek finals in Paris ?

Players play every day in a Masters Series tournament : I don't like if the final is lost because one player is exhausted.

Have you noticed that the semifinals on saturday have often been more remarkable than the finals on sunday ?

The fact that players play best-of-5 in grand slams is compensated by the fact they have one day off between rounds : that's the reason why it's fair and why it leads to good matches :shrug:

oranges
04-26-2010, 11:31 AM
They played best of five finals for years quite successfully, it's not some new invention and we are to speculate if it's possible to cope and how.

duong
04-26-2010, 11:38 AM
They played best of five finals for years quite successfully, it's not some new invention and we are to speculate if it's possible to cope and how.

yes, but considering the two last years finals to draw conclusions about "best-of-3" finals is not fair either, where there are so many other peculiar points to note about these two years as I said.

And the game changes as well and is surely harder physically than in the past.

It's not easy to draw conclusions from the past to the present : in a past which is not so old, McEnroe and Wilander played for >6 hours without tie-breaks ...

n8
04-26-2010, 11:59 AM
Nalbandian-Federer was in Madrid, not Paris.

To come back what Laurie says, the fact that she thinks there have been no intense Masters Series finals in the last 2 years, actually can be related to many other reasons than the fact that they gave up "best of 5 sets finals" :

- Federer being a father and a "part-time player", giving far less importance to Masters Series

- Nadal's knee problems

- Murray and in a lesser extent Djokovic realizing that his great results in Masters Series earnt him no recognition at all, and kept on suffering the sarcasms of people who said that "grand slams are the only tournaments where you should win" ... and then adapting to that

- other players seeing that and considering consequences, like Del Potro

- injuries ...

many reasons ...

interesting to note by the way that the Djokovic-Monfils which went to final set tie-break, hasn't been noted among the good Masters Series finals.

Statracket said it was a coincidence that Federer lost 3 finals he quoted, but it was not a coincidence that Federer played in all three actually :

has anybody thought of quoting the final between Murray and Djokovic in Cincinnati 2008 ?

Think of it, Laurie : Sampras-Rafter in best-of-3 you would have loved it, wouldn't you ?

Djokovic-Murray ? :haha:

Nadal-Djokovic in Monte-Carlo 2009 was also a great match imo :shrug:

Imagine Djokovic and Monfils would have played 5 sets : would you have said that it was a great final ?

Do you have great memories of Berdych-Ljubicic or Davydenko-Stepanek finals in Paris ?

Players play every day in a Masters Series tournament : I don't like if the final is lost because one player is exhausted.

Have you noticed that the semifinals on saturday have often been more remarkable than the finals on sunday ?

The fact that players play best-of-5 in grand slams is compensated by the fact they have one day off between rounds : that's the reason why it's fair and why it leads to good matches :shrug:

When I'm a bit lazy in my posts, I frequently end up regretting them. I was meant to say, for example the following three finals (not exclusively those finals). And sorry about the Madrid and Paris mistake (oops).

I like duong's point about the day off between matches making 5-set matches more suited for Grands Slams only. And I agree with there being several other reasons for a drop in good finals in the past two years. Note that most of the finals in 2002 were best of 5 but hardly any of them were very good.

To the opening poster, do you think Canada and Cincinnati should be best of 5 as well? Those two events were never best of 5 as Masters Series.

duong
04-26-2010, 12:06 PM
When I'm a bit lazy in my posts, I frequently end up regretting them. I was meant to say, for example the following three finals (not exclusively those finals). And sorry about the Madrid and Paris mistake (oops).

no I don't think you should regret that one (I know what you mlean generally ;) ),

as I don't think it's a coincidence that you noted the matches with Federer and not the ones with Murray ;)

And I don't think it's a coincidence either that Murray played many of the finals played in last 2 years and the OP didn't remember them either ;)

What about Murray-Simon (Madrid 2008) ? imagine it in 5 sets ;) :haha:

n8
04-26-2010, 12:22 PM
no I don't think you should regret that one (I know what you mlean generally ;) ),

as I don't think it's a coincidence that you noted the matches with Federer and not the ones with Murray ;)

And I don't think it's a coincidence either that Murray played many of the finals played in last 2 years and the OP didn't remember them either ;)

What about Murray-Simon (Madrid 2008) ? imagine it in 5 sets ;) :haha:

Well, this is all getting quite sly. So you're saying I should regret some (don't answer that :lol:).

Um, I know you're referring to the OP being British (and not wanting to point out the Murray has been in some of the 'not good' finals in the past two years) but he/she does talk about Murray in his/her OP.

I think one of the reasons Andy Murray plays so passively in Grand Slam finals is because he hasn’t played any best-of-five sets Masters finals where he could find out more about himself and be prepared to try different strategies and tactics at the level just below the slams, for instance how to come back when down in a long match.

Yeah Murray-Simon would've been a crunching 5-setter, same goes for Djokovic-Monfils (Paris 2009).

-edit-

Well, surely more people have got to agree that getting rid of 5-setter in non Masters Series (e.g. clay Stuttgart and Barcelona) was a good idea.

Har-Tru
04-26-2010, 12:33 PM
Yes.

duong
04-26-2010, 12:44 PM
Um, I know you're referring to the OP being British (and not wanting to point out the Murray has been in some of the 'not good' finals in the past two years) but he/she does talk about Murray in his/her OP.

well, I had not precisely noted that she was British to be honest,
but I remembered that poster for being nostalgic of serve-and-volley, Sampras and the nineties ;)

What she said about Murray made me wonder to say the truth. It may be partly true, but well players play many more grandslam matches in 5 sets than Masters Series finals : that's where they get the experience of 5-sets matches imo :shrug:

She speaks about Federer and others who won their first Grand slam after their first Masters Series : well yes but they had also played many tight grandslam matches before their first masters series win :shrug:

Murray may be a peculiar case since he played so many Masters Series finals and not so many grandslam big matches, but yet he played 3 times against Nadal in a slam (and won twice), he beat Del Potro in a slam, he had very tight matches against Melzer, Verdasco, Wawrinka and many others ... and he had many opportunities to change his passive game :shrug:


Anyway, it's not a good period to change Masters Series finals to 5 sets when :

- the number 1 is an old and part-time player who plays very few matches in one year and says that he doesn't even care about Agassi's record despite being so near :lol:

- the number 2 complains so much about the calendar that he wants to change the most traditional competition of tennis (or nearly with Wimbledon) which is the Davis Cup ... keeps on complaining that he was destroyed for all summer by a 4-hours ... 3-setter match

- the number 3, ex and probably future number 1, saint and martyr of tennis whose word is as pure as the best-educated child's word, has glass knees and complains everywhere about the calendar even to the least extents, saying that well after losing 14 games in Monte-Carlo, I was too tired to play in Barcelona, wow the ATP is so harsh at us :lol:

- the number 4, likely future number 1 as well, is injury-prone, injured for many months, and skips Cincinnati to prepare a grand slam two weeks later ... and wins, which is considered by many as an "evidence" that it was a good choice

- the number 5 has won many Masters Series but has received so little recognition for that and been so much blamed for his slam ones, that he clearly doesn't care much about masters series anymore and gives utter priority to grand slams

- the number 6 is old and more often injured than before, and all he misses in his carreer is a grand slam final

:haha:

n8
04-26-2010, 01:00 PM
well, I had not precisely noted that she was British to be honest,
but I remembered that poster for being nostalgic of serve-and-volley, Sampras and the nineties ;)

What she said about Murray made me wonder to say the truth. It may be partly true, but well players play many more grandslam matches in 5 sets than Masters Series finals : that's where they get the experience of 5-sets matches imo :shrug:

She speaks about Federer and others who won their first Grand slam after their first Masters Series : well yes but they had also played many tight grandslam matches before their first masters series win :shrug:

Murray may be a peculiar case since he played so many Masters Series finals and not so many grandslam big matches, but yet he played 3 times against Nadal in a slam (and won twice), he beat Del Potro in a slam, he had very tight matches against Melzer, Verdasco, Wawrinka and many others ... and he had many opportunities to change his passive game :shrug:

Agree.


Anyway, it's not a good period to change Masters Series finals to 5 sets when :

- the number 1 is an old and part-time player who plays very few matches in one year and says that he doesn't even care about Agassi's record despite being so near :lol:

- the number 2 complains so much about the calendar that he wants to change the most traditional competition of tennis (or nearly with Wimbledon) which is the Davis Cup ... keeps on complaining that he was destroyed for all summer by a 4-hours ... 3-setter match

- the number 3, ex and probably future number 1, has glass knees and complains everywhere about the calendar even to the least extents, saying that well after losing 14 games in Monte-Carlo, I was too tired to play in Barcelona, wow that schedule is so harsh :lol:

- the number 4, likely future number 1 as well, is injury-prone, injured for many months, and skips Cincinnati to prepare a grand slam two weeks later ... and wins, which is considered by many as an "evidence" that it was a good choice

- the number 5 has won many Masters Series but has received so little recognition for that that he clearly doesn't care much about masters series anymore and gives utter priority to grand slams

- the number 6 is old and more often injured than before, and all he misses in his carreer is a grand slam final

Well it (best of 3 finals), like byes, primarily benefits the top few players (as your points show). Other players may not be playing the finals (well not nearly as much), but they benefit from 5-set finals because of the fatigue it creates for the finalists. So continue your list past the top 10 and the story changes.

That said, I still definitely agree with the main point that Masters Series finals are better off as best of 3.

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 01:12 PM
It will not happen because the deal was to have first round byes and a best of 3 final in exchange for the players committing to playing all the masters events. The deal is backed by the threat of punishment if a top player just withdraws from an event without injury is to ban him from his next best event. Will that work? No, because the top player withdrawing will cite injury anyway. Then the tournament director screams bloody murder but so what? The punishment is supposed to occur in the future, if executed the future tournament where the top player is banned will just lose revenues from not having the top player.

Conclusion: The punishment will never happen and the entire deal was a grant/gift/perk from the coalition of tournament directors (read: ATP) to the top players.

Top player pulling out from a TMS event won't get punished, it's just another excuse to favour top players who already have enough benefits as it is. Top players didn't want to play best of 5 finals and they wanted more cash for it if they were to play it. Since the ATP don't want to change the schedule or have the balls to do so, to space the TMS in a more feasible way. So this was the compromise.

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 01:28 PM
When I'm a bit lazy in my posts, I frequently end up regretting them. I was meant to say, for example the following three finals (not exclusively those finals). And sorry about the Madrid and Paris mistake (oops).

I like duong's point about the day off between matches making 5-set matches more suited for Grands Slams only. And I agree with there being several other reasons for a drop in good finals in the past two years. Note that most of the finals in 2002 were best of 5 but hardly any of them were very good.

To the opening poster, do you think Canada and Cincinnati should be best of 5 as well? Those two events were never best of 5 as Masters Series.

No I don't, thats why I didn't mention them in the article. Canada and Cincinnati are too close to the US Open. That's why I also didn't mention Madrid.

But I think Indian Wells, Miami, Shanghai and ATP championships should be good candidates. Rome is before Madrid so why not there?

My article also indicates my ambivalence towards Madrid, shouldn't have sanctioned such a huge event so close to a huge event (French Open). But as we know Politics in sport is huge.

duong
04-26-2010, 01:30 PM
Well it (best of 3 finals), like byes, primarily benefits the top few players (as your points show).

Yes, this is all about top-players, and Action_Jackson is also right about that, the suspension which is in the rulebook will never be applied.

But who is supposed to play MAsters Series finals apart from the top-6 ?

And even more who is supposed to play the Masters Series finals which everyone will remember and which Laurie misses ?

Once again, Davydenko-Stepanek and Berdych-Ljubicic were not that bad finals in Bercy, these players were at the verge of the top-6 which I was speaking about.

These finals were quite long.

But do people remember them with nostalgia ?

I can tell you that in Paris no, the attention was small on these finals.

I don't think the recent IW and Miami finals would have drawn more attention if they had been played in 5 sets (or well, Ljubicic might have had a physical problem and Roddick come back, and the Americans would probably have been happier ... but we would have missed Ljubo's delight)

Other players may not be playing the finals (well not nearly as much), but they benefit from 5-set finals because of the fatigue it creates for the finalists.


That argument is very strange :confused: , when several people have talked about byes as "unfair" : 5-setter finals would be good because they give a chance to other players by exhausting top-players.

Well yes it's the story of Hamburg 2006 and its Robredo-Stepanek final one week after a huge final in Roma :rolleyes:

The byes are not the topic here, but only to say one thing : frankly speaking, as a Federer's fan, I would have preferred him to play one match before having to play Gulbis ;)

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 01:31 PM
Duong,

Why do you keep callimg me a "she". Not good to make assumptions. Laurie traditionally is a male name although I know more females have been called Laurie over the last 20 years.

Anyway, I'm a He not a She. :wavey:

duong
04-26-2010, 01:34 PM
Rome is before Madrid so why not there?

My article also indicates my ambivalence towards Madrid, shouldn't have sanctioned such a huge event so close to a huge event (French Open). But as we know Politics in sport is huge.

you may like to know that next year Madrid will be played the week before Roma (and no week beteween like last year).

(I learnt that when Nadal talked about it, as he actually likes it because he will have one week off after Monte-Carlo and Barcelona)

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 01:35 PM
But as we know Politics in sport is huge.

You mean Tiriac's money can cure all.

Jimnik
04-26-2010, 01:35 PM
They should restore 1st round to best of five.

oranges
04-26-2010, 01:36 PM
yes, but considering the two last years finals to draw conclusions about "best-of-3" finals is not fair either, where there are so many other peculiar points to note about these two years as I said.

And the game changes as well and is surely harder physically than in the past.

It's not easy to draw conclusions from the past to the present : in a past which is not so old, McEnroe and Wilander played for >6 hours without tie-breaks ...

Are you seriously expecting that a best of three finals will end up with as many classics as best of five had and would? The format itself has its limitations. It has its place on the tour, but if you want the ultimate tennis battle, you'd pick best of five. Or do you think they chose the format randomly for slams ;)

But I was mainly referring to arguments how there is day off between in slams, etc, etc. All those points were valid in all the years before and the game has not become so much more demanding that players suddenly can't deal with a 5 set final on the last day. Whatever the case, the bottom line is if they want the masters to have the prestige, attraction and quality that they used to have, then attention should be paid to things that contribute to it. Just forcing the players to all be there by cutting corners with byes and a shorter final might make sense to a business mind, but frankly the result is that they are basically glorified MMs.

Oh, and lets please not compare that change to the introduction of TB, which unlike this one, was a well thought one with a clear understanding of the game and all the implications the change would have. This one was just a business compromise.

duong
04-26-2010, 01:38 PM
Duong,

Why do you keep callimg me a "she". Not good to make assumptions. Laurie traditionally is a male name although I know more females have been called Laurie over the last 20 years.

Anyway, I'm a He not a She. :wavey:

Sorry sorry :haha: :worship:

Actually in France, I know "Lauries" who are all women (probably comes from the English first name and became famous because of a singer ;) ), it cannot be used for men in France.

There are so few ladies in here :lol:

And by the way, I'm also a "he", even though I'm often called "she" (because of my avatar) :lol:

n8
04-26-2010, 01:48 PM
That argument is very strange :confused: , when several people have talked about byes as "unfair" : 5-setter finals would be good because they give a chance to other players by exhausting top-players.

Well yes it's the story of Hamburg 2006 and its Robredo-Stepanek final one week after a huge final in Roma :rolleyes:

The byes are not the topic here, but only to say one thing : frankly speaking, as a Federer's fan, I would have preferred him to play one match before having to play Gulbis ;)

I only mentioned that because you went through what the top players might think of the matter. Obviously the main point here is what the spectators think of best of 3, not the players. Players that never (or hardly ever) play Master Series finals wouldn't really care how many sets they are but if they had to be picky, I think they would prefer best of 5 (in the same way players like their opponent to have had a gruelling 5-setter in the previous round in Grand Slams).

duong
04-26-2010, 01:50 PM
Are you seriously expecting that a best of three finals will end up with as many classics as best of five had and would? The format itself has its limitations. It has its place on the tour, but if you want the ultimate tennis battle, you'd pick best of five.

yes, I fully understand that argument actually.

You're right.

However, it's also hugely important that you have two great players in front of each other.

You need both :shrug: as I think that the reason why people miss 5-setter MS finals is because they want to see 5-setter matches between top-players, and there are not enough for them in Grand slams : when you have a Davydenko-Stepanek 5-setter final, you think "well I can have it in a grand slam, no need for one more", don't you ?

But when it's Federer-Nadal, you think, well, it's a pity that it ends after 3 sets, esp as they don't play against each other so often (and also people might think it's too easy for Federer ;) )

You absolutely need the top-players to play these 5-sets finals to get these matches which you miss.

The other ones you can see in a slam and that's enough.

No I don't think that 3-setter final can be as legendary as some 5-setter matches, but you can get very good 3-setter matches and muggy 5-setter ones.

And most importantly if top-players are not involved, you won't get anything :shrug:

All those points were valid in all the years before and the game has not become so much more demanding that players suddenly can't deal with a 5 set final on the last day.

Many players say it has become much more demanding (even if this debate is biased by the importance of Nadal's word, who has a hugely physical game himself).

Whatever the case, the bottom line is if they want the masters to have the prestige, attraction and quality that they used to have, then attention should be paid to things that contribute to it.

I think that if the top-players were at their best level in MAsters Series, MAsters Series would have as much prestige and attraction as in the past.

It was stil the case in 2007 and even 2008 when it happened :shrug:

laurie-1
04-26-2010, 02:01 PM
Sorry sorry :haha: :worship:

Actually in France, I know "Lauries" who are all women (probably comes from the English first name and became famous because of a singer ;) ), it cannot be used for men in France.

There are so few ladies in here :lol:

And by the way, I'm also a "he", even though I'm often called "she" (because of my avatar) :lol:

That's ok

I've been dealing with this for years in all sorts of situations.

One of my favourite moments was back in 2004 when I used to write on the BBC tennis forum before it became 606 in 2007. One day I wrote what I thought was a good point. And then this person replied and said I made some good points, and ended the statement with these words - "the Lady knows her stuff"! :silly: :D

oranges
04-26-2010, 02:04 PM
Why is it enough to see those classics in slams? It's not. If they are fighting for a really prestigious title, I want it in the appropriate form :p

I wouldn't say that it's important for two players from the very top to be involved in a five setter for it to be a classic. Had that Gonzo-Gasquet AO match been a masters final, I'm pretty confident it would rank very highly.

n8
04-26-2010, 02:07 PM
That's ok

I've been dealing with this for years in all sorts of situations.

One of my favourite moments was back in 2004 when I used to write on the BBC tennis forum before it became 606 in 2007. One day I wrote what I thought was a good point. And then this person replied and said I made some good points, and ended the statement with these words - "the Lady knows her stuff"! :silly: :D

LOL Makes me glad I didn't use my name - Joel - as my login as I would probably get the same problem (although my new avatar should make things obvious).

B.z.A.
04-26-2010, 02:32 PM
Yes!

Action Jackson
04-26-2010, 02:33 PM
Why is it enough to see those classics in slams? It's not. If they are fighting for a really prestigious title, I want it in the appropriate form :p

I wouldn't say that it's important for two players from the very top to be involved in a five setter for it to be a classic. Had that Gonzo-Gasquet AO match been a masters final, I'm pretty confident it would rank very highly.

It's all about the big names you know that.

straitup
04-26-2010, 03:17 PM
Of course :lol: I'd be fine with Stuttgart and Gstaad and those events going to best of 5 finals as well...there's nothing like waking up in the summer and watching a grueling 5 set marathon for the title. I hated the move when it happened in 2007 because 2005 was undoubtedly one of the best years for 5 set Masters finals and 2006 wasn't bad.

Silvester
04-30-2010, 02:17 PM
A few days late..but I was waiting for my account to get activated.. I would Love to see 5-set finals again at the Masters. These guys are professional athletes and I don't see that big of a difference adding 2 sets to a finals. Chances are it's not going to be the same person in the finals week after week so will an extra set or two really make that big of a difference to a player? I realize that scheduling is a big debate in the tennis season but come on..Your Pro's, getting paid a lot of money, give the fans an extra 2 sets a week if needed to decide a winner.

Eden
05-02-2011, 05:23 PM
Didn't wanted to open a new thread about this topic but read what Roger has to say...

Federer suggests a return of best-of-five Masters finals

By Bill Scott May 2, 2011


Madrid - Roger Federer on Monday suggested that the return of best-of-five-set finals at the Masters 1000 level might be worth considering as the Swiss prepared to resume his clay quest in Madrid.

Federer won the Madrid title twice, once in 2006 when it was an autumn indoor event and two who years ago on clay outdoors as he beat Rafael Nadal in the final.

The Spaniard then came back 12 months ago to seize it back, reclaiming the trophy at the Caja Magica.

After a schedule change on the ATP Madrid is now backed up by Rome, which starts on Sunday in a one-two Masters run.

'To win any set of Masters back to back is tough,' said Federer. 'The fields are always very difficult and there is only one guy who gets the chance (winner of the first event).

'Plus it was tougher before when you had to win six matches and play a best-of-five final. The day off between the two was a travelling day, it was almost impossible.

'Now there is no more best of five and the top eight seed get first-round byes. In some ways, I'd like to see best of five coming back, maybe something will change.'

The experience of 2006 was one reason why best-of-five set finals were abolished at the Masters level from the next year onwards.

Nadal beat Federer in a five-hour five-set marathon for the Rome title which left both players too exhausted to start playing again two days later at the Hamburg Masters.

Source:
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1636513.php/Federer-suggests-a-return-of-best-of-five-Masters-finals

TheBoiledEgg
05-02-2011, 06:24 PM
yes, bring back 5
if you cant handle them, change sex and play on WTA

TheBoiledEgg
05-02-2011, 06:27 PM
they only got rid of it cos of that long Federer vs Nadal match at Rome
and they had to play Hamburg the week after

if Masters werent back to back, then no probs
even an idiot like George W Bush would see that.

laurie-1
05-02-2011, 08:28 PM
Hehe I wonder if Federer read my article ;) :p

ossie
05-02-2011, 08:31 PM
no

Chris Kuerten
05-02-2011, 08:33 PM
I would love it.

Roamed
05-02-2011, 08:35 PM
I can understand why they can be problematic from the tournaments' perspective in terms of withdrawals, but I really prefer them, it's so much more exciting and they make for some way more memorable matches.

NadalYoung
05-02-2011, 10:00 PM
Yes only in IW and Miami and ATP finals however

Bad Religion
05-02-2011, 10:11 PM
Masters Series are meaningless tournaments , so the answer is NO
Finals at the best of 5 sets should be reserved for the Grand Slams, Davis Cup and the Olympic Final -

Ravel
05-02-2011, 10:18 PM
I'd rather see best of three sets tennis in the Masters. If you want best of 5, stick to Grand Slams

Action Jackson
05-03-2011, 04:58 AM
These cockjockeys at the ATP don't exactly have many brains.

abraxas21
05-03-2011, 05:23 AM
i'd much rather they eliminate first round byes for the top seeds but if they're not going to do so, then i'd support the idea of having best of five set finals in masters events.

as things stand now, it's way too unfair for the lesser ranked players. the top seeds have too many advantages

deebyeah
05-03-2011, 07:46 AM
best of five sets should definitely be restored, I miss best of five sets

Start da Game
05-03-2011, 08:09 AM
i think it should be like this:

1. for all the masters finals pre french open, the format should be best of 5 sets.......a little bit more space on the calender for the european clay swing, nobody will complain about best of 5 sets format.......

2. for all the masters finals post french open including that useless season end cup, the format should be best of 3 sets finals as the players will be approaching the season end and 5 set finals would be a tough ask with plenty of cement court tennis to be played.......

following this format would satisfies both players and the fans.......

acionescu
05-03-2011, 09:51 AM
Definitely yes :rocker:

fast_clay
05-03-2011, 10:46 AM
5 set finals should be at the tournament directors discretion... it should be left up to them, not some bullshitty atp directive robbing the fans...

hopefully the powers that be at the atp see the folly in their calendar and bring back the faster surfaces at the back end of the year to counter the fatigue... its not hard to get up for a match knowing there is a very obvious, finite and natural limit to how many brutal rallies you are gonna have per set...

so instead of robbing the fans atp with decreased matches, retirements and 3 set finals will you just cop the f*** on...

coolfish1103
05-03-2011, 03:01 PM
They should just revamp the schedule, get rid of the byes, and implement best of 5 sets for all masters series. After all, it's not fair to the players that were not seeded to get less rests and the actual problem is that there's way too many tournaments.

Things to suggest:


GS: Grand Slams Best of 5 sets
MS: Masters Best of 5 sets
AD: Advanced Best of 5 sets for FINAL
IN: Intermediate
CH: Challengers
FU: Futures

Points


W F SF QF R16 R32 R64 R128 Q Events

GS 128 2560 1280 640 320 160 80 40 20 10 Melbourne, Paris Roland Garros, Wimbledon, New York
WTF 1440M

MS 128 1280 640 320 160 80 40 20 10 Madrid, Roma, Indian Wells, Shanghai, Miami
AD 32 640 320 160 80 40 20 Dubai, Rotterdam, Acapulco, Barcelona, Washington, Beijing, Tokyo, Basel, Valencia
AD 64 640 320 160 80 40 20 10 Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Cincinnati, London Queens, Montreal, Paris
IN 32 320 160 80 40 20 10
IN 64 320 160 80 40 20 10 5

CH - 32S
125K+H 160 80 40 20 10 5
125K 144 72 36 18 9 5
100K 128 64 32 16 8 4
75K 112 56 28 14 7 4
50K 96 48 24 12 6 3
35K +H 80 40 20 10 5 3

FU - 32S
15K +H 32 16 8 4 2
15K 24 12 6 3 2
10K 16 8 4 2 1

Schedule


Week Season IN AD MS GS OT

01 Hard 2 Events
02 Dubai Hopman Cup
Rotterdam
03 2 Events
04 Melbourne
05 Melbourne
06 Clay 2 Events
07 Acapulco
Barcelona
08 2 Events
09 Madrid
10 Madrid
11 2 Events
12 Monte Carlo Davis Cup
13 2 Events
14 Roma
15 Roma
16 2 Events
17 Hamburg World Cup
18 2 Events
19 Paris
20 Paris
21 Grass 2 Events
22 London
Washington
23 2 Events
24 Wimbledon
25 Wimbledon
26 Hard 2 Events
27 Cincinnati Davis Cup
28 2 Events
29 Indian Wells
30 Indian Wells
31 2 Events
32 Montreal
33 2 Events
34 New York
35 New York
36 2 Events
37 Beijing Davis Cup
Tokyo
38 2 Events
39 Shanghai
40 Shanghai
41 2 Events
42 Basel
Valencia
43 2 Events
44 Miami
45 Miami
46 2 Events
47 Paris Davis Cup Final
48 World Tour Final
49 Rest
50
51
52

Requirements


Mandatory Tournaments, if qualified for Main Draw

4 Grand Slam: Melbourne, Paris Roland Garros, Wimbledon, New York
5 Masters Series: Madrid, Roma, Indian Wells, Shanghai, Miami

8 Advanced Series + 2 Intermediate/Challengers, if Top 30
10 Advanced/Intermediate/Challengers/Futures, if not Top 30

May not participate in Challengers/Futures if Top 50, unless received Wild Card.

Davis Cup may replace 1 event, or Mandatory Advanced Series, but not Forced 0s.
World Cup may replace 1 Intermediate/Challengers event.

World Tour Finals available only for Top 8 players and starts on Thursday to allow rankings to be made and suitable rests.
Each rubber rewards 160 points with semi final wins rewarding 320 points and final wins rewarding 640 points at MAX 1440 points.

myrt
05-03-2011, 07:11 PM
Give us the best of five in the MS final and give Bye's only to the previous weekend finalists. WE need to have more excitement in the final of a Master series than what's currently happening. Best schedule really would be at least a week off between MS events and everybody plays first round. ..let the players come rested and ready to play and not do a "strategic" tank when there are back to back tournaments.

I go to Cincy and I hate that some of the players either don't come to the event after playing in Canada, they play at a lower level, or they tank because they are tired and the physical demands of playing two tournaments back to back in summers heat and humidity are too grueling. I don't mind MS ticket prices when I get to see great matches but it's often not the case at Cincy.

Sunset of Age
05-03-2011, 07:18 PM
They should just revamp the schedule, get rid of the byes, and implement best of 5 sets for all masters series. After all, it's not fair to the players that were not seeded to get less rests and the actual problem is that there's way too many tournaments.

Couldn't agree with you more, except for your last mentioned point - the players aren't forced to play all those (minor) tournaments, it's a matter of proper scheduling.

PoorMan'sDavy
05-03-2011, 07:56 PM
Five set finals should be used at YEC, but not for the other Masters. With QF/SF/Final usually on consecutive days at Masters tournaments, five set finals are too much, except at year end.