ATP scheduling [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ATP scheduling

swebright
10-12-2009, 07:32 PM
18 tourneys/year is really too much??? :devil:

From Tennis Mailbag:

A few thoughts as the season winds to an end ...

1. Get me rewrite! For months now, the WTA has been less stable than AIG's stock price. But the hits keep coming. Dinara Safina lost to an unknown player yet again -- the latest being wild card Zhang Shuai in the second round of the China Open -- and surrendered the top ranking to Serena Williams. However, Serena didn't fare too well herself, falling in the third round to Nadia Petrova in a match that turned on ... wait for it ... a hotly disputed line call. Maria Sharapova ran out of steam in a third-round loss to Peng Shuai. Venus Williams was upset by Russian teenager Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova for the second time in a week. And Svetlana Kuznetsova returned from the deep freeze to win the Beijing title. Inasmuch as budget cuts are looming at WTA HQ, here's a plea to spare the tour's scriptwriter. Week in and week out, the material is reliably riveting.

2. If Rafael Nadal's career were traded publicly, the short sellers would be out in full force come fall. Mr. October, he ain't. As a matter of ritual, Nadal's results go off a cliff in the autumn, a function of the grueling, violent tennis he plays in the first half of the year. Still, the state of Nadal's game -- and, more specifically, his body -- is more than a little troubling.

After missing June and July with knee injuries, Nadal returned for the U.S. hard-court swing, but his progress was undone by an abdominal injury. Clearly injured in the U.S. Open semifinal, he offered little resistance against Juan Martin del Potro. Last week he was thrashed in a similar fashion, mustering just four games against Marin Cilic in a semifinal in China. While Nadal abides by the "jock code" and doesn't attribute defeat to injury, it's clear he is playing hurt. (The stats don't lie either: He had zero aces and lost the majority of points on his serve against Cilic. That's saying something.) When one of the sport's most magnetic figures -- a supreme athlete and consummate professional -- simply cannot make it through a season abiding by the entry rules as currently written, think it might be time to rethink the schedule?

3. As the seasons wind down, it's an appropriate time for players to take stock of their careers. For most, it means plotting for 2010 and contriving a playing schedule that enables them to maximize gain and minimize risk, usually in the form of injury or emotional fatigue. For others, particularly on the wrong side of 30, it entails deciding whether to soldier on or step away.

Fabrice Santoro, Marat Safin, Nathalie Dechy, Ai Sugiyama and Denmark's Kristian Pless have gently informed us of their departures. It will be interesting to see which of their colleagues join them. An online BBC sports poll last week asked readers: "Do you think Amelie Mauresmo will call it a day?" Ultimately, though, these are deeply personal decisions that depend on what answers the athletes get when they ask the tough questions of themselves.

--------------------------
What Andy and Nadal said:

SHANGHAI (AP) -- Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick complained Tuesday that the ATP season is too long and that tennis players need a proper offseason.

Both players, who are in China for the Shanghai Masters, reiterated criticism of the sport's punishing schedule.

"It's impossible to play 1st of January and finish 5th of December," said the 23-year-old Nadal, who did not defend his title at Wimbledon because of a knee injury. "It's impossible to be here playing like what I did the last five years, playing a lot of matches and being all the time 100 percent without problems."

Roddick, a veteran at 27, said players need a longer offseason to recover, and noted that both Roger Federer (fatigue) and Andy Murray (wrist injury) are skipping the Shanghai tournament.

"It's ridiculous to think that you have a professional sport that doesn't have a legitimate offseason to rest, get healthy, and then train," Roddick said. "I just feel sooner or later that common sense has to prevail."

The top players on the men's tour are required to play at eight of the nine Master Series events -- with Monte Carlo being the exception. And the top eight players of the year also have an extra week by qualifying for next month's season-ending tournament in London.

Roddick said that merging the player's union and tournament operation under the ATP umbrella, which was considered a cutting-edge concept that would benefit the players when instituted in 1990, hasn't turned out to be overwhelmingly positive.

"I certainly don't see any other sporting leagues or federations following our lead as far as not being individually represented," Roddick said. "I don't know that it's up to the players to be making business decisions about the schedule. At a certain point, I wish our input would be.

"It's got to be someone's job to figure that out, right?"

-------------------------------------------
Roddick blasts 'ridiculous'

Share Print It My T&R An exasperated Andy Roddick said the ATP men's tour must give players more time to rest during the season or risk shortening the careers of the "stars" of the sport. The world number six lost to qualifier Lukasz Kubot in the first match of his title defense at the China Open last week and said then that the top players were playing too much tennis. He renewed his attack at the Shanghai Masters on Monday while admitting the ultimate negotiating tool, a players' strike, was unlikely. "I think it's ridiculous to think that you have a professional sport that doesn't have a legitimate off season to rest, get healthy, and then train," the 27-year-old told reporters at his 16th tournament of the season. World number one Roger Federer pulled out of Shanghai citing fatigue, while number three Andy Murray blamed a wrist injury for his absence from the inaugural $3.24 million tournament. "I don't think that's all of one big coincidence, and I just hope that the shortsightedness doesn't affect the length of careers," he said. "I think in tennis you definitely want your stars around as long as possible." The top 30 men's players are obliged to play the four two-week grand slam events and eight of the nine Masters Series tournaments. In addition, their best four results in ATP 500 events and best two in lower level tournaments count toward their rankings, effectively meaning they must play at least 18 a year.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 07:35 PM
This old chestnut, there are about 3 threads on this subject.

Same shit every year and nothing changes.

Timariot
10-12-2009, 08:12 PM
It's the same thing every year. And get this, schedule has become SHORTER. In the '90s, ATP consisted of 85 to 90 events, as opposed to ~67 today. And season was as long or longer than today.

In early '80s, schedule had something like 140 events! If you were top player, you played

-Australian Open and Davis Cup final in December

-Season-ending championships in January! (There was no room for it in the calendar anywhere)

-February begins, back to saddle. Where's the offseason? Nowhere, that's why many top players chose to skip AO.

And players played a lot. Lendl was most extreme, routinely 100+ singles matches in a year (one year he played ~130 matches). Navratilova played 80 to 100 singles matches in a year, and full schedule of doubles on top of that. These days? Serena MIGHT be able to log 50 matches in a season. If she really pushes for it.

Schedule is not too long. If anything, it is too short, showcasing decline of appeal of professional tennis.

But there are too many hardcourt events. THOSE are injuring the players.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 08:17 PM
The schedule is too long and not a proper off season at all, but hardcourts are cheap, therefore maximising more profits, while causing more injuries.

Timariot
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Season is not too long. Literally, there is less than FIVE players in ENTIRE TOUR who complain about schedule being too long. Vast majority of the pros want more events.

Now, I agree that whole mandatory event thing needs work and is probably too demanding for top pros.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 08:21 PM
You only hear the big players whining, because the other ones voices are less likely to be heard.

Timariot
10-12-2009, 08:30 PM
Non-top players have no similar obligations: they are free to choose their schedule - and they overwhelmingly choose to play as many events as humanly possible. Challenger tour runs longer than the main Tour, and Futures tour runs all year long.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 08:33 PM
Well they don't do because they want to play that many events, it's more out of sheer economics, most of the players on the lower level aren't swimming in money or have big backers. So they don't play, they don't earn, it's basic economics.

scarecrows
10-12-2009, 08:39 PM
no 5 sets finals, 5 matches to win a Masters event and these bastards still complain

only 12 tournaments are mandatory, play only those and stop whining

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Gonzo is smart, he hasn't played many events this season and by choice.

The system is there and they have to adjust to life within it.

Aaric
10-12-2009, 08:42 PM
It's the same thing every year. And get this, schedule has become SHORTER. In the '90s, ATP consisted of 85 to 90 events, as opposed to ~67 today. And season was as long or longer than today.

In early '80s, schedule had something like 140 events! If you were top player, you played

-Australian Open and Davis Cup final in December

-Season-ending championships in January! (There was no room for it in the calendar anywhere)

-February begins, back to saddle. Where's the offseason? Nowhere, that's why many top players chose to skip AO.

And players played a lot. Lendl was most extreme, routinely 100+ singles matches in a year (one year he played ~130 matches). Navratilova played 80 to 100 singles matches in a year, and full schedule of doubles on top of that. These days? Serena MIGHT be able to log 50 matches in a season. If she really pushes for it.

Schedule is not too long. If anything, it is too short, showcasing decline of appeal of professional tennis.

But there are too many hardcourt events. THOSE are injuring the players.

This

Matt01
10-12-2009, 08:48 PM
no 5 sets finals, 5 matches to win a Masters event and these bastards still complain

only 12 tournaments are mandatory, play only those and stop whining


They also have to play 5 ATP 500 tourneys.

And calling the players bastards is absolutely classless. On the one hand, the players have to plan their schedule better, Nadal's schedule for example this year was slightly :rolleyes: so he shouldn't complain too much. Roddick on the other has a point when he says that ending the season with Masters in December is insane. There must a proper off-season of at least 1.5 months for the Top Players.

Matt01
10-12-2009, 08:50 PM
It's the same thing every year. And get this, schedule has become SHORTER. In the '90s, ATP consisted of 85 to 90 events, as opposed to ~67 today. And season was as long or longer than today.


Longer than today? I doubt it. And you cannot compare the tennis of the 90s with today's men's tennis.

Timariot
10-12-2009, 09:00 PM
Longer than today? I doubt it. And you cannot compare the tennis of the 90s with today's men's tennis.

Yes, it's true, todays players kinda suck :devil:

But you don't have to doubt, look for yourself:

http://tennis.webz.cz/res/1995/1995.html

Season began 2nd January, and last event, Grand Slam Cup, was in early December. Note how there were three events (two of them big) just prior to Season-ending Championships.

GS Cup was not a mandatory event, you didn't even get ranking points from it. But top players participated because of HUMONGOUS cash prizes.

Timariot
10-12-2009, 09:04 PM
They also have to play 5 ATP 500 tourneys.

And calling the players bastards is absolutely classless. On the one hand, the players have to plan their schedule better, Nadal's schedule for example this year was slightly :rolleyes: so he shouldn't complain too much. Roddick on the other has a point when he says that ending the season with Masters in December is insane.

Masters is not in December.

Of course, in the 'good old days', Masters was held in January. With AO and DC finale in December, there was no room for it. So it was always pushed back to next year. "New" season began in first week of January just like today, but most top players granted themselves couple of weeks off by skipping the AO, and actually began the year by playing the Masters.

scarecrows
10-12-2009, 09:13 PM
They also have to play 5 ATP 500 tourneys.


mandatory?

Matt01
10-12-2009, 09:21 PM
Yes, it's true, todays players kinda suck :devil:

But you don't have to doubt, look for yourself:

http://tennis.webz.cz/res/1995/1995.html

Season began 2nd January, and last event, Grand Slam Cup, was in early December. Note how there were three events (two of them big) just prior to Season-ending Championships.

GS Cup was not a mandatory event, you didn't even get ranking points from it. But top players participated because of HUMONGOUS cash prizes.


GS Cup was an exhibition, so it doesn't really count :p

In 1995, the Masters was in the middle of November, now it's at its end. So basically, over the years, the off-season for the players was getting shorter even though the competition got harder.

Matt01
10-12-2009, 09:22 PM
mandatory?


Pretty much yes :shrug:

Timariot
10-12-2009, 09:54 PM
GS Cup was an exhibition, so it doesn't really count :p

In 1995, the Masters was in the middle of November, now it's at its end. So basically, over the years, the off-season for the players was getting shorter even though the competition got harder.

Sigh. ATP Championships (or Masters, whatever) has been on same spot (mid-late November) since 1987 when AO was moved to January. For example, in 2000, Masters was in last week of November. Lately, it has drifted back to mid-November as total number of ATP events has decreased. This year, it was moved couple of weeks to spread out the fall schedule, giving players more time to travel between Asia and Europe (as Shanghai replaced Madrid). So in a sense, this years' schedule is lighter since it contains roughly same number of events spread over longer time. Nowadays, there is always a week off between last regular tournament and Season-Ending championships, in the '90s this was often not the case.

Really, you may not want to comment an issue you obviously know nothing about.

Matt01
10-12-2009, 10:25 PM
Sigh. ATP Championships (or Masters, whatever) has been on same spot (mid-late November) since 1987 when AO was moved to January. For example, in 2000, Masters was in last week of November. Lately, it has drifted back to mid-November as total number of ATP events has decreased. This year, it was moved couple of weeks to spread out the fall schedule, giving players more time to travel between Asia and Europe (as Shanghai replaced Madrid). So in a sense, this years' schedule is lighter since it contains roughly same number of events spread over longer time. Nowadays, there is always a week off between last regular tournament and Season-Ending championships, in the '90s this was often not the case.


Fine. My point about the off-season being shorter now than in 1995 stil stands :wavey:

This year, there are 2(!) ATP 500 tourneys 3 weeks before the Masters, then there is Paris which is mandatory for everyone, and then the players have a week off before the Masters. And anything else than that 1 week off would be completely insane. But of course feel free to comment on an issue you obviously know nothing about.

scarecrows
10-12-2009, 10:36 PM
Pretty much yes :shrug:

do they get any fine. penalty or whatever if they don't play?

Matt01
10-12-2009, 10:41 PM
do they get any fine. penalty or whatever if they don't play?


Don't know about real fines, but if you don't play 5 ATP 500 events you get zero pointers in your ranking, which basically can als result in losing money.

scarecrows
10-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Don't know about real fines, but if you don't play 5 ATP 500 events you get zero pointers in your ranking, which basically can als result in losing money.

so basically you are saying that players complain because they want easier money
only 12 tournaments are mandatory, they need to play only those. If someone is brave enough to play more, fair play to him. Go to the gym and prepare better next season

if the season was shorter they'd play less tournaments and they'd earn less money anyway

Matt01
10-12-2009, 11:25 PM
so basically you are saying that players complain because they want easier money
only 12 tournaments are mandatory, they need to play only those. If someone is brave enough to play more, fair play to him. Go to the gym and prepare better next season

if the season was shorter they'd play less tournaments and they'd earn less money anyway


The Top Players have to play at least 4 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 1000s, 4 Slams + the Masters if they qualify. That's 17 tournaments. The requirements are already too heavy IMO.

Radalek
10-13-2009, 12:51 AM
It's the same thing every year. And get this, schedule has become SHORTER. In the '90s, ATP consisted of 85 to 90 events, as opposed to ~67 today. And season was as long or longer than today.

In early '80s, schedule had something like 140 events! If you were top player, you played

-Australian Open and Davis Cup final in December

-Season-ending championships in January! (There was no room for it in the calendar anywhere)

-February begins, back to saddle. Where's the offseason? Nowhere, that's why many top players chose to skip AO.

And players played a lot. Lendl was most extreme, routinely 100+ singles matches in a year (one year he played ~130 matches). Navratilova played 80 to 100 singles matches in a year, and full schedule of doubles on top of that. These days? Serena MIGHT be able to log 50 matches in a season. If she really pushes for it.

Schedule is not too long. If anything, it is too short, showcasing decline of appeal of professional tennis.

But there are too many hardcourt events. THOSE are injuring the players.

Tennis today is much more demanding than 20 years ago, you can't make it if you're not physically up with top dogs.
How many 18-19 yr old guys do you see in top 100? None. They are not physically mature, they can't cope with pace of the game. Tennis in not the same as it once was. Thus even this schedule is problematic.

out_here_grindin
10-13-2009, 01:08 AM
I have always said that one of the top players should not enter one of the slams. The reason? To prove that the ATP/ITF does not control me.

Mjau!
10-13-2009, 01:15 AM
Anyone who plays more than the mandatory events shouldn't complain about the schedule. Rafa doesn't have to play that much. It's his own decision.

The Top Players have to play at least 4 ATP 500s, 8 ATP 1000s, 4 Slams + the Masters if they qualify. That's 17 tournaments. The requirements are already too heavy IMO.

They don't have to play a single one of those tournaments. They choose to do so because they want the points.

scarecrows
10-13-2009, 06:38 AM
They don't have to play a single one of those tournaments. They choose to do so because they want the points.

i tried to explain that to him as you can see from previous posts but he's a bit slow

Action Jackson
10-13-2009, 06:41 AM
It's a lot easier for the top players to manage their schedules than the guys down the food chain.

rubbERR
10-13-2009, 06:42 AM
they also have to practice/travel, its not about 18 tournaments its combination of those

Bad Religion
10-13-2009, 07:32 AM
A shorter season means more injuries , same number of tournaments in less weeks

Most players expect to play 20-25 tournaments in a season , so they are going to play those tournaments in 44 , 35 or 52 weeks either way, no matter how long the season lasts .

krystlel
10-13-2009, 08:38 AM
I think it's probably the increase in penalties like the zero pointers which are the main problem, and having to travel to a venue even if you withdraw otherwise it would probably be easier to avoid the current restrictions.

I just think that in a lot of cases, players feel like they need the match practice to be able to do well.

Anyway, this is a good opportunity for me to copy and paste the article I wrote about it. :lol:



Should the ATP calendar support its players more?

The ATP players have long spoken about the need for a longer off-season, and itís been one of the most widely discussed topics in the most recent years. Itís been such a cause of concern for the players that for the first time, three of the highest profile players, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic nominated themselves to be on the ATP Players Council in a bid to create change and make a difference.

Given the recent injury problems of Rafael Nadal and the recent announcement of Roger Federerís withdrawal from the tournaments in Tokyo and Shanghai, itís time to evaluate the ATP calendar again.

There are many sides of the story to this argument, and from a media perspective itís always tempting to go with the players, given that theyíre the stars of our sport. Itís obvious from their point of view that injuries are becoming more of a problem with the increasing physical demand and athleticism required of the sport.

There are many issues to consider, and the intention of this article is not to give a conclusive opinion but instead to consider each and every point available.

The 2009 ATP World Tour / ITF schedule

Despite talks of improving the current ATP schedule, things appear to be heading in the opposite direction with increased mandatory tournaments, greater penalties for withdrawals and more travel required with the players, now with a mandatory Asian season due to the Shanghai tournament.

Shorter breaks between Davis Cup, and the tournament preceding it, changed to a half week turnaround instead of one and a half weeks. Considering that the biggest cause of injuries is the change of surfaces, this is a controversial issue. The number of players that were sporting knee injuries during the US Open season as a result of the surface transition from clay, grass to hardcourt was alarmingly high this year, including players such as Gilles Simon, Fernando Gonzalez, Gael Monfils and Jose Acasuso.

The off-season is equally as short as it was last year, and itís the only opportunity for players to build up their strength and endurance, create that fitness base for the year. As much as the players have voiced their frustration, would players necessarily enjoy the greater extended period, more weeks of fitness training without a tournament in sight? Itíd surely be a system that would reward the most focused and hard-working players. Up to some point, enough weeks need to be allocated to allow players to have a proper holiday but not more than that.


The players


An overwhelming majority of players expressed their preference for back-to-back tournaments and a shorter break in between Davis Cup and the preceding tournament, so itís not really the ATPís fault but more so, a voting matter. Players have consistently shown that smart scheduling isnít the highest of their priorities. Instead spending less time in a particular continent or region seems to be of greater interest.

Ideally the best schedule would be playing on-and-off tennis with alternating weeks of rest and tournament tennis, but this doesnít suit to fit the mindset of a tennis player. They prefer to play mini-seasons of tennis, and only take the breaks that are necessary for them to survive physically. Then take into account players picking the tournaments they like, building up form for Grand Slams, appearance fees and prizemoney and somehow smart scheduling becomes lost somewhere.

Despite the mandatory events, the ATP calendar is still essentially a pick-and-choose system, planned by players themselves. At some point, players have to take responsibility for their own scheduling. In my view, any player that doesnít qualify for the Year-End World Tour Final should certainly be capable of creating their own longer off-season if they wished to do so.

Lower ranked players can benefit from playing for prizemoney, or may feel reduced effects of fatigue with fewer consecutive matches at each event.


The entertainment business / the spectators


How would you feel if the tournament from your home city was taken away? Itís a spectator sport and no player is obligated to play any particular 250 event - these types of events forms the majority of events calendar. Therefore, in theory, any number of them could exist. In my opinion, tournament attendance is the best method of attracting casual fans, people that are more interested in the occasion and spotting stars rather than the matches themselves.

Prizemoney is driven by revenue, sponsorships and television deals so the financial side will always be the highest priority. This is basically another way of saying that the playersí concerns will always have to be less important, and revenue is driven by the participation of the top players. This explains the increasing trend towards mandatory participation.

One could argue that money could be invested into promoting the second tier players like Fernando Verdasco and Gilles Simon, but this broad approach would likely produce less effective results, because promotion tends to need to be streamlined to a select group of players. It is also difficult to impress casual viewers and players need to back it up with great results in the Grand Slams, not to mention the addition of an eye-catching game.


Do you think the ATP calendar should be shortened Ė and is it more of a playersí responsibility or is the ATP largely to blame for this?

http://www.tennis-brain.com/2009/10/does-atp-calendar-need-to-support.html

Action Jackson
10-13-2009, 08:49 AM
The structure of the ATP is what needs to be changed, but that isn't going to happen at any point soon.

It's meant to be a joint organisation between the tournaments and the players, but it's biased towards the tournaments. The fact that the ATP isn't a proper players union.

Next of all the players need a few weeks off at the end of the year, so the bodies and mentally can recover, then put in a proper fitness base, where most of the heavy strength and speed endurance is done. During the season then it should be about maintenance.

There are exhos, league tennis to keep the players in tennis shape, while they are undertaking their base training, after coming back from their break.

Goldenoldie
10-13-2009, 09:19 AM
It's the same old story - should the top players be favoured by the ATP or the average professionals. The schedule is hard for the top players because they keep winning, and so play more matches. Of course they would like to do less work for the same money, wouldn't everyone?

I think the complaints about the number of mandatory tournaments have little merit, because virtually everyone chooses to play more than the minimum.

I have looked at a couple of players at random:-

Top player Djokovic has played 80 matches in 22 tournaments,
Average player Fognini has played 42 matches in 28 tournaments,
i.e. Djokovic has played nearly twice as many matches but 6 fewer tournaments.

I'm sure Djokovic would like a lighter schedule, but I don't think Fognini would.
All the players (apart perhaps from Nadal) are free to choose when and where they play, so if they play too much the answer is in their own hands.

Timariot
10-13-2009, 02:57 PM
Fine. My point about the off-season being shorter now than in 1995 stil stands :wavey:


Except your point is wrong since there was GS Cup held in December. :rolleyes:


This year, there are 2(!) ATP 500 tourneys 3 weeks before the Masters, then there is Paris which is mandatory for everyone, and then the players have a week off before the Masters. And anything else than that 1 week off would be completely insane.

Yet, if you ACTUALLY BOTHERED to look at 1995 schedule, this is exactly what was done: Paris Super9, next week two million dollar events (equivalent to todays ATP 500) and one lesser event, then ATP Championships, then week off, then Davis Cup finale, then GS Cup. After that, you enjoy your THREE WEEK OFFSEASON before starting the whole circus again at Doha.

In 1996, ATP Champs were pushed back one week. I'm sure you would have complained about "making schedule even longer" back then, but it was to give players a week off between the Championships and last Tour event.

As it was, at the time Sampras was indeed complaining about the schedule. He participated to GS Cup, played one match, cashed massive dough (IIRC, first round winner got as much money as Wimbledon finalist) and pulled out.

Timariot
10-13-2009, 03:01 PM
The structure of the ATP is what needs to be changed, but that isn't going to happen at any point soon.


Problem is, that Slams are pretty much fixed where they are. There is not much wiggle room there. What is usually proposed is to move Australian Open to March or something, but this is not practical. You could probably move it to November or December, but in the past this was highly unpopular.

Another thing which is every year proposed by American fans is to end the season to US Open. This would mean having few or no events at Asia and European halls. Given that interest in pro tennis in North America is declining and sponsorship money there is drying up, this is clearly not where the Tour needs to be developed.

Langers
10-13-2009, 03:16 PM
I have always said that one of the top players should not enter one of the slams. The reason? To prove that the ATP/ITF does not control me.
Yeah you see now that's just stupid. :yeah:

Matt01
10-13-2009, 04:27 PM
They don't have to play a single one of those tournaments. They choose to do so because they want the points.

i tried to explain that to him as you can see from previous posts but he's a bit slow


From atpworldtour.com:

Q. What are the requirements and rules for player participation for an ATP World Tour 500 tournament?

A. Top 30 players (based on '08 year-end ranking) must play a minimum of four 500 level tournaments during the calendar year, including at least one event following the US Open

thrust
10-13-2009, 04:52 PM
Season is not too long. Literally, there is less than FIVE players in ENTIRE TOUR who complain about schedule being too long. Vast majority of the pros want more events.

Now, I agree that whole mandatory event thing needs work and is probably too demanding for top pros.
The main problems are hard courts and forcing top players to play nearly all Master Series events, especially when there are two in a row. There should be a plan where some play Canada and not be forced to play Cincinatti next week. The same is true of IW and Miami. In today's game top players, who reach finals or semis on a regular basis, should not be forced to play more than 14 tournaments a season. Naturally, the lesser achieving players want more tournaments in order to make good money. Nadal or Roddick should just claim injury or be fined for not playing inconvient tournaments for them. They are not going to be fired or miss the money that much.

Jimnik
10-13-2009, 05:46 PM
The dominance of hard courts is the biggest problem with the ATP calendar. The length of the season wouldn't be an issue if players planned their schedules better.

Action Jackson
10-14-2009, 04:16 AM
Problem is, that Slams are pretty much fixed where they are. There is not much wiggle room there. What is usually proposed is to move Australian Open to March or something, but this is not practical. You could probably move it to November or December, but in the past this was highly unpopular.

Another thing which is every year proposed by American fans is to end the season to US Open. This would mean having few or no events at Asia and European halls. Given that interest in pro tennis in North America is declining and sponsorship money there is drying up, this is clearly not where the Tour needs to be developed.

Unless they do it Samuel Doe style the ex-Liberian leader, who went into their dressing room and said "if you guys don't improve, then you will be executed". Then there is going to be negotiations between all the relevant parties. The Aus Open can't be moved to the end of year, it will be a huge joke after all the time it needed to be rebuilt.

It's a global game, many players at the moment are going through the motions, well the ones who have nothing to play for. It's not like they aren't trying. I am talking about the ones who won't have a chance of making the TMC or the ones on the edge of the top 100.

The indoor season needs to reduced, but the fact so do the events on hardcourts, as I said before since it's the cheapest surface to construct, and the powers at be have deemed that this is the surface that is dominant. No need for 96 draws in Indian Wells and Miami for a start.

Timariot
10-14-2009, 10:25 AM
Unless they do it Samuel Doe style the ex-Liberian leader, who went into their dressing room and said "if you guys don't improve, then you will be executed". Then there is going to be negotiations between all the relevant parties. The Aus Open can't be moved to the end of year, it will be a huge joke after all the time it needed to be rebuilt.

The indoor season needs to reduced, but the fact so do the events on hardcourts, as I said before since it's the cheapest surface to construct, and the powers at be have deemed that this is the surface that is dominant. No need for 96 draws in Indian Wells and Miami for a start.

My long-time idea is: bring back green clay. Replace spring US hardcourt season with green clay season (like it was, in the past). This would mean converting both IW and Miami to Har-tru. Less wear & tear for the players, would tie in nicely with upcoming European clay season.

Again, Slams are the main obstacles in the schedule. US Open can't be moved further in the fall. Wimbledon perhaps could be moved week or two, but little point doing so. Neither there is any point moving RG, giving how cramped the clay season already is.

Action Jackson
10-14-2009, 10:55 AM
Green clay, it doesn't tie into the red clay season, they play differently. Hardcourts itself aren't problematic, just the amount of tennis played on them is the main issue.

Back to back TMS events aren't needed, as for Wimbledon well they could move it back a week, but they are going to do nothing,

rubbERR
10-14-2009, 10:56 AM
and delpo retires