Change the way draws are done in tennis! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Change the way draws are done in tennis!

NicoFan
06-17-2005, 01:38 PM
I hate the way draws are done in tennis.

You'll have two qualifiers playing in the first round, and the potential to meet another qualifier in the second round, yet a decent player that ranked #34 can end up meeting someone ranked #3 in the first round (which isn't fair for either).

It doesn't make any sense.

I think they should do it the way NCAA basketball does the championship games. #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc. etc.

That way the person at the top who deserves to get a good draw because they worked hard all year to get their ranking gets easier early rounds. And the people who are at the bottom are just lucky to be invited to the dance so they can't complain.

And that way you don't have situations like a couple years ago at the US Open when Andy pulled Tim in the first round. I liked both but obviously you don't want one of the best hard court players who has the potential to win it upset early, but who wanted to see a caliber player like Tim lose in the first round either.

Its really minor league the way they do it in tennis.

World Beater
06-17-2005, 03:39 PM
it was worse for the players, when there were only 16 seeds. With 32 seeds, the big name players have a better chance at getting through than meeting some dangerour floaters, but it deprives the tournament and its fans of some great early round matchups.

The first two rounds nowadays are a bore. Only on grass, and clay do the early round matchups have the potential to be exciting because you have specialists who are not high enough to be seeded, but capable of causing upsets giving top guys "fits"

NicoFan
06-17-2005, 04:01 PM
it was worse for the players, when there were only 16 seeds. With 32 seeds, the big name players have a better chance at getting through than meeting some dangerour floaters, but it deprives the tournament and its fans of some great early round matchups.

The first two rounds nowadays are a bore. Only on grass, and clay do the early round matchups have the potential to be exciting because you have specialists who are not high enough to be seeded, but capable of causing upsets giving top guys "fits"

I know fans like the potential upset, but I think in the end, they would rather have the big name players in the QFs, SFs, and finals, and not some guy that had an easy draw and is lower ranked.

NYCtennisfan
06-17-2005, 07:35 PM
I agree NicoFan.

nkhera1
06-17-2005, 09:09 PM
I agree.

Chris Seahorse
06-17-2005, 10:35 PM
I strongly disagree. Such a system would make it much harder for younger inexperianced players to move up the rankings. It would also lead to far fewer surprises. If a player is good they should be able to handle a tough draw anyway. The idea of having Federer starting the tournament playing the lowest ranked player in the draw - well it doesn't sound like great drama lets leave it at that.

NicoFan
06-17-2005, 11:44 PM
I strongly disagree. Such a system would make it much harder for younger inexperianced players to move up the rankings. It would also lead to far fewer surprises. If a player is good they should be able to handle a tough draw anyway. The idea of having Federer starting the tournament playing the lowest ranked player in the draw - well it doesn't sound like great drama lets leave it at that.

Well if the only players that matter to a fan are those in the top ten, then yeah, there wouldn't be any drama. (And not that there is anything wrong with only rooting for players in teh top ten).

But for someone like myself who likes primarily players in the 20-50 range, it would be nice to see them have more of a chance if they get stuck with bad draws week after week after week than the players ranked lower that maybe get a lucky draw and get to the 3rd/4th round because of it when they don't deserve it.

Case in point - Fernando Verdasco - here's a kid that has talent and I believe that he has the ability to be a top 20 player. But he's had the worst draws this year that I've ever seen. As a result he's down into the 50 something rankings.

Draws (seeds like this playing around in Wimbledon) should go by the hard work and talent a player puts in all year. Not on some random system.

Eve83
06-18-2005, 12:25 AM
Round Robin...thatīs the only way to go!!!

It might take a bit longer but hey, itīs worth it, trust me;)

Deboogle!.
06-18-2005, 12:40 AM
I agree with a lot of the theory, but I don't know if it would help the problem, especially considering the number of low-ranked surface specialists. For example, someone on grass might rather have to play Nadal instead of, say, Karlovic. Someone on clay would rather face Andy than someone like, perhaps, Almagro or Starace or Acasuso. So, it wouldn't always work anyway.

shtexas
06-18-2005, 02:08 AM
So, under this proposed system, the top 16 seeds would always get the 16 qualifiers in the first round? That doesn't sound fair.

NATAS81
06-18-2005, 02:30 AM
They should do that for college football as well.

Take the final 16 teams and divide the brackets according to 1-16 ranking in a 3 or 4 week round-robin playoff.

Don't base it on strength of schedule or surface.

Chris Seahorse
06-18-2005, 10:24 AM
Well if the only players that matter to a fan are those in the top ten, then yeah, there wouldn't be any drama. (And not that there is anything wrong with only rooting for players in teh top ten).


As it happens I'm not only interested in players in the top 10. Far from it. I simply don't like the idea of the lowest ranked players in a tournament being used as fodder. The game shouldn't be about maintaining the status quo. The suggestion to pair off all the lowest ranked players with the highest ranked players offends me in the same way as the recent decision to reduce the qualifying places in Queen's from 7 to 4 did.

KarstenBraasch#1
06-18-2005, 12:08 PM
No.

I mean, yes. Back to 16 seeds please. :)

Ferrero Forever
06-18-2005, 12:17 PM
I like everything the way it is, though i do agree about how it not being fair with two qualifiers playing eachother. Other than that I really like the way the draws are made up.

Action Jackson
06-18-2005, 12:31 PM
It's called the luck of the draw, and I actually wish it was back to the 16 seeds and not the 32 that they have now, it was a concession made to the players, but it happens very rarely that all 32 seeds go through to the 3rd round.

It's actually more of a problem when they play RG as they don't use specific seedings on clay rankings and the situation that normally happens and happened this year, the overall depth is stacked on side of the draw, but it rarely happens that it's evenly balanced at the best of times.

That solution proposed would not make the game any better.

cobalt60
06-18-2005, 03:11 PM
The luck of the draw is still the fairest at this moment. And yes 16 seeds would make more sense. Since Murphy's Law applies- there will be good and bad. And just because some player gets a good draw, doesn't neccessarily mean that they will make it through the early rounds anyway.

Experimentee
06-18-2005, 03:35 PM
I strongly disagree with the 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15 format, that would be too predictable, and if that happened no one would want to be seeded 16 because they'd have to meet Fed, so they'd do everything to tank a match that would make them 16, and other situations like that.
The 32 seeds was enough to prevent unfair matchups, and under what you propose the solution would be to have 64 seeds, which would be really stupid.

NicoFan
06-18-2005, 09:20 PM
No no no....lol!

I was just using the NCAA as an example.

I didn't mean to only have 16 seeds.

Keep the number of seeds the same as they are for each tournament.

But the draw goes by the rankings - not random which I still maintain isn't fair. I really don't care if it isn't "fair" to teh lowest ranked players. As they do now, they move up usually in challengers and smaller tournaments anyway.

Say for touranment that has 40 players in the field - #1 plays #40, #2 plays #39, etc. Do it that way no matter how many people in the field. That way the top players get a deserved pass at the begining of the tournament, and but also keeps from having a top player get stuck with a player who just misses being seeded.

It will never happen so just my humble opinion. :-)

Chris Seahorse
06-18-2005, 11:52 PM
No no no....lol!

I was just using the NCAA as an example.

I didn't mean to only have 16 seeds.

Keep the number of seeds the same as they are for each tournament.

But the draw goes by the rankings - not random which I still maintain isn't fair. I really don't care if it isn't "fair" to teh lowest ranked players. As they do now, they move up usually in challengers and smaller tournaments anyway.

Say for touranment that has 40 players in the field - #1 plays #40, #2 plays #39, etc. Do it that way no matter how many people in the field. That way the top players get a deserved pass at the begining of the tournament, and but also keeps from having a top player get stuck with a player who just misses being seeded.

It will never happen so just my humble opinion. :-)

I understand exactly what you are suggesting. Hey why not go even further and just give the seeded players byes right through to the quarterfinals for 32 player draws and the 3rd round for slams. Hell with qualifiers. Hell with all those annoying lower ranked players. Tennis is about the stars and not enough is being done to protect them from dangerous 1st round opponents.

Seriously, I do know where you are coming from. You say you are disappointed that poor old Verdasco has had some tough draws lately. I don't really see that they have been unusually bad to be honest. If he can't beat Soderling on clay he has no sympathy from me. My favorite player Fabrice Santoro drew Federer in the 1st round at the Australian Open and the 3rd round of the last US Open but them's the breaks.

The lower ranked players need a chance to make an impact on the tour and tennis needs upsets to keep the excitement of the sport alive. As you say it will never happen and I say thank God to that!!!!

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 01:02 AM
What I would like to see is the people that work hard all year to get their rankings, get a reward for that hard work. I don't think someone who has the talent to get to say #15 in the world should have to play someone who just missed being seeded, while a qualifier who isn't quite up there yet get to play someone who also had to qualify.

Hard work and success should get you something.

And you don't have to talk to me about lower ranked players. When I first started following Nico he was like 60 or 70 something in the world, got injured and went down to 100 something in the world. Didn't bother me. I stuck with him, and will always stick with him irregardless of his ranking. But if he went back to 100+ in the world, I would expect him to work his way up on the challenger circuit or in the smaller tournaments (as he did before), not by getting a lucky break because of a draw as if he had the winning ticket in the lottery. That's not the spirit behind sports.

That's all. And differences of opinion are good...so don't be mad at me Chris Seahorse...I'm really quite a nice person despite my personal feelings about the draws... :angel:

NYCtennisfan
06-19-2005, 04:20 AM
That's all. And differences of opinion are good...so don't be mad at me Chris Seahorse...I'm really quite a nice person despite my personal feelings about the draws...

I think when we disagree on the message boards, we should just do what Alexito36 does: buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu bad poster lucky to be posting making bad face jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja.

:)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 09:30 AM
There should be 128 seeds really.

CooCooCachoo
06-19-2005, 09:33 AM
If we do what you want, tennis will lose part of its appeal. First round clashes will become less interesting. The luck of draw is part of the excitement.

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 09:43 AM
If we do what you want, tennis will lose part of its appeal. First round clashes will become less interesting. The luck of draw is part of the excitement.

We agree for once and one day I can convince you that Fernando Vicente is a friendly guy.

Chris Seahorse
06-19-2005, 10:17 AM
What I would like to see is the people that work hard all year to get their rankings, get a reward for that hard work. I don't think someone who has the talent to get to say #15 in the world should have to play someone who just missed being seeded, while a qualifier who isn't quite up there yet get to play someone who also had to qualify.

Hard work and success should get you something.

And you don't have to talk to me about lower ranked players. When I first started following Nico he was like 60 or 70 something in the world, got injured and went down to 100 something in the world. Didn't bother me. I stuck with him, and will always stick with him irregardless of his ranking. But if he went back to 100+ in the world, I would expect him to work his way up on the challenger circuit or in the smaller tournaments (as he did before), not by getting a lucky break because of a draw as if he had the winning ticket in the lottery. That's not the spirit behind sports.

That's all. And differences of opinion are good...so don't be mad at me Chris Seahorse...I'm really quite a nice person despite my personal feelings about the draws... :angel:

Definately Im not mad ;) It's cool. I'm sure you are very nice person. I'm thinking of the young player ranked 250 in the world who knows if he is able to produce 3 upsets in qualifying his reward for his work is a match in the main draw against a top ten player. It's not a great insentive. The players ranked between 100 and 250 work very hard too and make alot less money. Sometimes they deserve a break. If we make it that hard to break into the top tier alot of players may give up trying and that's tennis's loss. It's a hard life outside of the top 100.

I do have a suggestion if you are really serious about the idea however. Why not design the Wimbledon draw or for the that matter the Roland Garros draw, as i know you prefer clay as it would have looked in your format. Post it on MTF and see what people think. :)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 10:28 AM
Chris, if that formula was followed at RG it would be disatrous, especially since RG doesn't go by surface seeding.

It's like most people only see the top few and not worry about the rest of them.

Chris Seahorse
06-19-2005, 11:21 AM
Chris, if that formula was followed at RG it would be disatrous, especially since RG doesn't go by surface seeding.

It's like most people only see the top few and not worry about the rest of them.

Hey, George you don't have to convince me. I'm with you 100% on this one. :)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 11:43 AM
Hey, George you don't have to convince me. I'm with you 100% on this one. :)

Well, it's a idea that doesn't have any merit and there is already too much pandering to the top players anyway.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 12:55 PM
Okay okay, I give up...lol!

You're right the first rounds would be boring, and the lower ranked players woudn't have any incentives to play.

I just wish there was a middle way between the way we do it now, and the way I suggested. Just doesn't seem fair to the moment - just random. I think of it in terms of other sports - what if baseball/hockey/basketball/football (all the world or American) teams played all year, and when it came to the playoffs at the end of the year, they just threw all the names of a teams into a bowl, and said who gives a crap what you've done all year, you're all equal now...seems ludicrous.

But again, you win, I lose, and back to tennis (even though it is on yucky grass now...)

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 12:57 PM
And glad Chris Seahorse that you're not mad at me.... :)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 01:03 PM
Okay okay, I give up...lol!

You're right the first rounds would be boring, and the lower ranked players woudn't have any incentives to play.

Yes, if it had the way you wanted it then McEnroe wouldn't have made the semis at Wimbledon in 77 as a qualifier.

Guga or Wilander wouldn't have bothered to show up to RG in 97 and 82 respectively and Gaudio would have been lucky to be invited last year.

I just wish there was a middle way between the way we do it now, and the way I suggested. Just doesn't seem fair to the moment - just random. I think of it in terms of other sports - what if baseball/hockey/basketball/football (all the world or American) teams played all year, and when it came to the playoffs at the end of the year, they just threw all the names of a teams into a bowl, and said who gives a crap what you've done all year, you're all equal now...seems ludicrous.

It's not a better solution, trying to clearly favour one side over another isn't actually helping. One thing is the examples that you use are team sports, with home and away matches throughout, organising an individual sport in a format that suits superstars and I said why I don't even like the # 32 seeds and well playoffs are knockout games and that is what they are, there are no second chances in a Slam and that is how it should be.

Actually your suggestion is more ludicrous, just because it happened to a player that you happen to like, got a tough draw, that's tennis, if the player is good enough, then they win.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 01:43 PM
Actually your suggestion is more ludicrous, just because it happened to a player that you happen to like, got a tough draw, that's tennis, if the player is good enough, then they win.

Actually George I've felt this way for a long time...long before this year. I've been watching tennis for almost 30 years now. Its something I've felt for long time. I'm not some ditz who just roots for my favorites. I actually do know something about the game.

And really, how many times does a qualifier or lower ranked player actually get into the QFs? Very rarely.

Yet its quite disheartening for fans when a player who just misses being seeded and who does have more of a chance to get to at least the QFs gets knocked off in the 1st round because of a tough draw - which does happen a lot.

Again, my suggestion may have been "ludicrous" to some, but I still maintain the present system is even more ridiculous.

But we can agree to disagree.

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 02:01 PM
Actually George I've felt this way for a long time...long before this year. I've been watching tennis for almost 30 years now. Its something I've felt for long time. I'm not some ditz who just roots for my favorites. I actually do know something about the game.

If I thought you were a ditz I'd say so, even then how are the benefits going to be better for the game? They aren't.

And really, how many times does a qualifier or lower ranked player actually get into the QFs? Very rarely.

Has it happened? It has, that 4th round appearances happened by qualies at the AO for example and the other guys that won Slams from not very good rankings, if under your method, then they are just fodder wasting time.

Yet its quite disheartening for fans when a player who just misses being seeded and who does have more of a chance to get to at least the QFs gets knocked off in the 1st round because of a tough draw - which does happen a lot.

Thanks for proving my point true, if it didn't happen to a player that you didn't like, then the feelings wouldn't be the same. It's not disheartening actually, it happens and your suggestions aren't any fairer.

Again, my suggestion may have been "ludicrous" to some, but I still maintain the present system is even more ridiculous.

But we can agree to disagree

Yes, I did say it was "ludicrous" for the reasons that :
- The game is already too much in favour of the top players as is, the 32 seeds is an example of that.
- It's a game for all the players, irrespective of rankings, if it wanted to be really elite then there should be only 8 players at these Slams.
- Trying to cheapen the game and the fact that the less likelihood of upsets doesn't make it any better, if your system was adopted.
- When the draw is either done by random numbers in the computer or someone pulls out a name in a barrell under supervision to make sure that there isn't any rigging going on. That's not ludicrous anywhere from 33 to 128 can go anywhere in the draw.

There are more pressing issues in tennis than this, that need to be addressed and addressed quickly.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 02:21 PM
There are more pressing issues in tennis than this, that need to be addressed and addressed quickly.

On that we can agree.

I have a lot but my biggest:

Have one strong organization that oversees tennis rather than the all these organizations - ATP, ITF, Davis Cup. And with a strong commissioner or whatever anyone wants to call her/him. For me, this should be numero uno.

Have standards the tournaments have to go by - Wimbledon should not be allowed to have their own system to seed players.

I know here in the States that television coverage is awful. And from what I've read in posts, it seems the same in much of Europe and Australia, but don't live there so could be wrong. A sport can't survive in the 21st century without good television coverage.

More development money for players in juniors and the lower ranked players. Now it depends on each country - great for up and coming players in places like the US and Europe and Australia - not so great for players in other places.

And doesn't seem all that important but for the big fans like us it is - and because without the fans, there would be no pro game to watch - since there isn't good television coverage and many fans have to follow the game via the internet - it should be required that each tournament have properly functioning live scoreboards on the web sites. Many of the tournaments have terrible scoreboards that aren't live or aren't updated often - or this is no scoreboard at all for some of the smaller tournaments.

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 02:36 PM
On that we can agree.

That's about to change for the most part.

I have a lot but my biggest:

Have one strong organization that oversees tennis rather than the all these organizations - ATP, ITF, Davis Cup. And with a strong commissioner or whatever anyone wants to call her/him. For me, this should be numero uno.

Well the Davis Cup is part of the ITF for one and not a seperate organisation. Do I have a problem with the ATP? Well not in theory, but it's not always served by the best interests for the players, that's the problem. You have clearly missed what the biggest problems are that need fixing.

Have standards the tournaments have to go by - Wimbledon should not be allowed to have their own system to seed players.

Standardisation well they don't do it for RG, where it's probably more necessary to do so. Not that important in the overall scheme of things, but annoying.

I know here in the States that television coverage is awful. And from what I've read in posts, it seems the same in much of Europe and Australia, but don't live there so could be wrong. A sport can't survive in the 21st century without good television coverage.

Americans only want to know about American players and that is the mantra of the TV execs and tennis fans are never going to be happy with tennis coverage, there aren't complaints because there is too much of it.

Niche sport and that is all tennis will ever be, it's never going to be the dominant sport in any country and mostly caters to certain types of people, that aren't generally taken by the masses.

More development money for players in juniors and the lower ranked players. Now it depends on each country - great for up and coming players in places like the US and Europe and Australia - not so great for players in other places.

This is why Davis Cup is so important as it provides revenue especially to the poorer associations who are meant to be helped out by the ITF as well and not the ATP. Then people whining that Davis Cup should be every 2 years, when the fact is that there are these places who need the annual revenue, which wouldn't happen every 2 years.

If someone is a fan, they'll find a way to get the results and the like, another minor irritance.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 04:37 PM
You have clearly missed what the biggest problems are that need fixing.

Oh George we definitely disagree on this because putting fans concerns as a minor irritation is very much missing out on what are the big problems in tennis. Fans should not have to search for hours on the web to get a result. This a major professional sport not a bowling league...

Much llike you do with the draw - caring more about a 140th ranked player over whether fans who are upset because Tim Henman and Andy Roddick have to face each other in the 1st round.

Because the way this sport treats its fans is right up there right after the need for re-organization. Very rare for me to go to a tournament that is fan friendly.

Look at a sport like Nascar here in the US - from its inception, it was perceived as a redneck southern only sport. That has changed, and it is now up there in popularity across the US along with baseball and American football.

Why?

One of the biggest is the way they treat their fans. Fans are considered the foundation of the sport, and they listen to what the fans have to say, and in numerous ways, the people that run Nascar show their appreciation to their fans.

And access to the drivers are very much available to the fans. Unlike tennis. (Johnny Mac talks briefly about this in his book in his list of suggestions on how tennis can improve).

And women now make up over 40% over the fans in Nascar - women are the key demographic for any sport that wants to grow. Nascar makes sure that the women are appreciated - so do the sponsors who now even make commercials geared for the women.

And Nascar know how to market the sport which is another story - tennis absolutely is clueless on how to market themselves.

Goodness...I love a good debate!!! lol! :-)

Fedex
06-19-2005, 05:07 PM
The draws are all fair, as far as I'm concerned, although I would add that I do believe draws are sometimes biased in favor certain player. (ala Agassi at the USO and Henman at Wimbledon)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 05:21 PM
Oh George we definitely disagree on this because putting fans concerns as a minor irritation is very much missing out on what are the big problems in tennis. Fans should not have to search for hours on the web to get a result. This a major professional sport not a bowling league...

When did I ever say that the fans should be ignored? You don't know me very well if you think that, considering what I say about parasites at tennis events.

You make it sound like it's that hard to get results, since you have been following the sport for so long, how did you survive without the internet?

Much llike you do with the draw - caring more about a 140th ranked player over whether fans who are upset because Tim Henman and Andy Roddick have to face each other in the 1st round.

Considering what you're actually suggesting is deliberately creating a situation where it's not equal for everyone to compete and assigning players to specific roles, just cause of their rankings.

Because the way this sport treats its fans is right up there right after the need for re-organization. Very rare for me to go to a tournament that is fan friendly.

You need to visit more tournaments then. I have been to quite a few fan friendly ones and the ones aren't, get mentioned in this regard.

Look at a sport like Nascar here in the US - from its inception, it was perceived as a redneck southern only sport. That has changed, and it is now up there in popularity across the US along with baseball and American football.

One is global and the other is American. That's the difference, just cause tennis is having problems in America doesn't mean it is having problems everywhere.

And access to the drivers are very much available to the fans. Unlike tennis. (Johnny Mac talks briefly about this in his book in his list of suggestions on how tennis can improve).

I am sorry I have problems respecting someone that says there should be 5th set tiebreakers in Slams. Mac talks out of his arse most of the time and that clouds any good suggestions he may have. At the same time these players have lives to and it needs to be balanced in that regard.

And women now make up over 40% over the fans in Nascar - women are the key demographic for any sport that wants to grow. Nascar makes sure that the women are appreciated - so do the sponsors who now even make commercials geared for the women.

Football is the biggest sport in the world and would still be, even if women weren't marketed to and they can still easily hold that position, it's a different demographic that appreciates the game and that's the same in tennis and since it does have a limited niche, none of this zeal and changing these rules for sake of attracting casual fans to cheapen the sport.

You have still missed the obvious one.

cobalt60
06-19-2005, 06:29 PM
So GWH- tell us what the obvious one is if you please?

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 06:42 PM
So GWH- tell us what the obvious one is if you please?

Why not have a go at working it out? I'll tell eventually.

cobalt60
06-19-2005, 06:57 PM
Why not have a go at working it out? I'll tell eventually.

:D What a tease you are ;)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 06:59 PM
:D What a tease you are ;)

I'll answer it, but it's so obvious.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 07:32 PM
The long schedule.

That's what I would say is the biggest problem. Players are burning out and getting injured.

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 07:34 PM
The long schedule.

That's what I would say is the biggest problem. Players are burning out and getting injured.

That's it, much more important than other changes.

The problem is that there isn't a long enough off season, to do the base training to handle the season, and that plus rest and recover.

The calendar needs to be shorter and there has to be some cuts made and a better definition of the respective seasons, while trying to play in as many countries as possible.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 07:58 PM
The calendar needs to be shorter and there has to be some cuts made and a better definition of the respective seasons, while trying to play in as many countries as possible.

Most definitely.

Better definition of the respective seasons.

That is bottom line.

Should be clay court, then short grass, then hardcourt (outdoor then indoor). Get rid of surfaces like carpet. No mixing of the surfaces within a season.

I would start the year on clay first in South America, and then move it to Europe.

Go to the UK for the short grass season.

Move it to the US for the hardcourt outdoor season.

Then head back to Europe for hardcourt indoor season.

Then move to Asia and end the year at the Oz.

Who do we talk to George to get this done... ;)

Action Jackson
06-19-2005, 08:03 PM
No way ending the year at the Aus Open, the end of the season should always be the Davis Cup final and it's better to start the season in Australia, as at the end of the season the AO would get treated as a joke and a burden and that shouldn' t happen, after all the work that they have done on the event.

star
06-19-2005, 08:19 PM
Bring back the 16 seed draw, please!!!

Now it's just blah and boring the first few days. It used to be so exciting to see the unexpected match ups the first few days.

Jenrios
06-19-2005, 08:54 PM
Much as it sucks when your fav player gets a bad draw, I wouldn't like to see a change. The lower ranked players/up and coming players would suffer if they were made, as qualifiers, to face the top 10 in the first round etc.

NicoFan
06-19-2005, 10:42 PM
No way ending the year at the Aus Open, the end of the season should always be the Davis Cup final and it's better to start the season in Australia, as at the end of the season the AO would get treated as a joke and a burden and that shouldn' t happen, after all the work that they have done on the event.

End of year meaning end of year like Paris is...the Masters Series final and Davis Cup would go on as usual.

The only reason I said that in our fictitious fantasy world here is that Asia wants some tournaments. So I thought they could shorten the European indoor hard (because you already have a lot of tournaments in Europe for clay), and put in an Asia season which will culminate at the Oz Open.

But as I type it, it wouldn't work because the players are tired by then and it would be a burden to go to Asia/Australia.

Asia wants tournaments and have the money and sponsors for them. So where do you put them?

cobalt60
12-23-2006, 09:07 PM
Round Robin...thatīs the only way to go!!!

It might take a bit longer but hey, itīs worth it, trust me;)

Looks like you got your wish for next year. Mr Disney must have been reading this thread;)