ATP reveals intention to overhaul its calendar [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ATP reveals intention to overhaul its calendar

veyonce
04-24-2006, 01:48 AM
ATP reveals intention to overhaul its calendar
By Neil Harman, Tennis Correspondent
The Times
April 24, 2006

AT THE behest of Etienne de Villiers, the chairman of the ATP who is driving the changes in image, bearing and structure that the sport has ducked for far too long, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal strode into a hotel room last month together with Marat Safin and Andre Agassi. They all said that they could manage an hour — they stayed almost three.

Getting four players, three who have been No 1 in the world and the other the next in line, to agree on anything would normally require the patient diplomacy that marked Henry Kissinger’s statesmanship. That the four emerged persuaded that plans being devised and prepared for launch at the start of 2008 will be the sea-change in approach that the sport needs, marks them as the most comprehensive, clear-minded strategies presented in years.

The fine print is yet to be disclosed, as those tournaments directors who gain ground and, more importantly, those who could lose it in the calendar redesign consider their new positions. But what the changes amount to is a recognition that the four grand-slam championships, Wimbledon and the French, US and Australian Opens, are enhanced by the signposting of events that build into theirs, that a group of four or five “Super” combined events needs to be encouraged and that there has to be minimum guarantees of player participation and prize-money, so that tennis is marketed to television and the general public as a sport with a design that makes common sense.

The changes of personnel at the top of so many important places in tennis — at the ATP, the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, at Wimbledon and Tennis Australia — have allowed those who are not tied to the intransigent positions to relate to the imperatives for change. At their heart is De Villiers, whose impact in less than a year at the ATP has been profound.

He recognises the enormity of what he is asking people in tennis to get their heads around. “I may be a fool but I am a determined fool,” he said. “I will not back down nor be intimidated by either the challenge or any threat to the ATP. I have the support of my board and we are going to make this journey. Some will get travel sick, some may not come and some will love it. But we will make the journey.”

Most importantly, what is being devised has both the involvement and the backing of the grand-slam events. Christian Bimes, president of the French Federation, is encouraged by the new direction; Steve Wood, the new chief executive of Tennis Australia, has expressed his enthusiasm; De Villiers has had a productive meeting with Tim Phillips, the Wimbledon chairman, and Ian Ritchie, his new chief executive, while Arlen Kantarian, the head of professional tennis at the USTA, has defined, with the five-week series leading into the US Open, the prototype on which the new strategy is based.

In the view of De Villiers, the two areas in the calendar that need the most attention are the clay-court season before the French Open and the autumn season leading up to the Tennis Masters Cup circuit finale.

“It’s painfully obvious that the challenges that the USTA, ATP and Sony Ericsson WTA Tour faced to create the US Open Series pales in comparison to those we now face trying to link tournaments in different countries in one cohesive swing,” De Villiers said. “But I believe it can and will be done.”

“In order to do this we will ensure a significant player commitment; add more large combined ATP-WTA Tour events; use the round-robin format at circuit events; build on our national heritage in key emerging and traditionally strong markets by establishing a number of elite “national opens” comprising some of the existing Masters events, and build clear, marketable swings leading into the grand slam tournaments, and the Tennis Masters Cup.”

“While the concept of the Masters Series of nine disappears, the current tournaments are all incorporated into these two categories — the fans understand what the slams mean and have recognised the Italian, German and Monte Carlo Opens for years. We need to celebrate all these things and more people to care about the story of tennis.”

THE MASTERPLAN

1) The four grand-slam tournaments and four or five “Super” combined events would be mandatory.

2) Round-robins introduced at events below grand-slams and “Super” combined.

3) Masters Series on ATP Tour would disappear.

4) Davis Cup final played in second week of November.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5205-2149222,00.html

ChloeLove
04-24-2006, 01:53 AM
Okay . . . well i'm too lazy to read the entire article. But do they mean, four or five super events leading up to the grand slams, or the grand slams, and then five or four other super events.

kapranos
04-24-2006, 01:53 AM
round-robin format at circuit events :retard:

I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 super combined events as long as they are around the world and in big cities, not in the middle of the desert (Indian Wells) or in some boring cities in the middle of nowhere (Cincinatti).

So it could be:
1) Miami
2) Somewhere in Asia (Tokyo maybe).
3) Rome
4) Montreal or Toronto
5) ???

Tennis Fool
04-24-2006, 01:54 AM
No Masters Series :eek: I don't get it :shrug:

kapranos
04-24-2006, 01:55 AM
There IS a Masters Series, it's just that it's being reduced from 9 to 5 and being given a new name.

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 01:56 AM
Why was this determined in a meeting with only four players behind closed doors? Shouldn't the entire ATP be discussing it?

Anyway I'd need more details to say whether I like it or not but at least he seems to be thinking progressively so that's a good start.

Tennis Fool
04-24-2006, 01:57 AM
Kapranos, still don't get it.

Frooty_Bazooty
04-24-2006, 01:59 AM
Hmm this sounds exciting but also kind of confusing...

I suppose if Roger, Rafa, Marat and Andre were all cool with it, then it must be ok

ChloeLove
04-24-2006, 02:01 AM
Weird.

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 02:03 AM
I suppose if Roger, Rafa, Marat and Andre were all cool with it, then it must be okNot necessarily. The challenger circuit players lead very different lives and their seasons and careers are very different and I imagine they all have opinions about how the schedule should be altered as well, and those opinions may not be congruent with those concerns of these top players. That's why I hope this was just a preliminary discussion type thing and that nothing was actually determined in a meeting with only FOUR players.

mangoes
04-24-2006, 02:03 AM
Interesting............I hope IW won't be one of those combined super events, but given the current owners, I think it'll be one........... But, this is rather confusing.........

Wannabeknowitall
04-24-2006, 02:07 AM
I wonder how big of a change this will be.
Technically a player can play on clay from Feburary to September and take 10 weeks off for the grass and hard court season.
When you have such a array of players, indoor specialist, hard court specialist, grass specialist, clay court specialist, someone is bound to get left out in the cold with changes.

buddyholly
04-24-2006, 02:12 AM
I expected to read that they are going to reduce the number of tournaments and thus avoid the embarrassment of reaching the end of the year and no-one is fit enough to go to the Master's Cup. But no. If anything they will add to the calendar.
GREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

Whistleway
04-24-2006, 02:24 AM
What about moving AO to February? That would give them some time?

megadeth
04-24-2006, 02:27 AM
round-robin format at circuit events :retard:

I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 super combined events as long as they are around the world and in big cities, not in the middle of the desert (Indian Wells) or in some boring cities in the middle of nowhere (Cincinatti).

So it could be:
1) Miami
2) Somewhere in Asia (Tokyo maybe).
3) Rome
4) Montreal or Toronto
5) ???

my opinions on the super events leading up to the slams:

1. a super event before AO... upgrade adelaide or sydney?

2. a super event before FO... rome most probably

3. a super event before W... finally, a "masters" on grass! - queen's perhaps?

4. a super event before USO... disolve cincy and canada or combine it as another event in the calendar then push out miami from mar to aug/sept to make it the super event

5. a super event before TMC... should be balanced around the world so have asia take part of it... upgrade one of the asia events as a super (japan or thailand?)

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 02:28 AM
4. a super event before USO... disolve cincy and canada or combine it as another event in the calendar then push out miami from mar to aug/sept to make it the super eventa huge tourney in Miami in the middle of hurricane season???

buddyholly
04-24-2006, 02:35 AM
a huge tourney in Miami in the middle of hurricane season???

That would separate the men from the boys - literally. I can see the headline now:
DAVYDENKO BLOWN AWAY IN FIRST ROUND OF NASDAQ - DENT STANDS FIRM

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 02:37 AM
I am a little confused by the thought of all events besides the "Super" and Grand Slam events being round robin. Why in the world is that necessary?

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 02:39 AM
That would separate the men from the boys - literally. I can see the headline now:
DAVYDENKO BLOWN AWAY IN FIRST ROUND OF NASDAQ - DENT STANDS FIRMLOL.. but, it could completely ruin the tournament. The one year Delray was the week after the USO, it almost didn't make it to happen at all. So, I don't use this word often, but planning a huge event in South Florida in the middle of Hurricane season would be stupid.

Jess, I'm quite unclear about that, too. Would it be all events? Some events? Something new? Hard to tell what's meant by that I think :shrug:

Leo
04-24-2006, 02:41 AM
Round robin sucks, don't do it!

And I like the 9 Masters Series.

I think one portion of the calendar that needs to be addressed is Jan. - March before the start of the clay court season, as well as the obvious post-US Open months. Why are they tampering with the clay court season, which seems to have the most comprehensive and understandable lead-up to a Grand Slam?

Leo
04-24-2006, 02:44 AM
Round robin only works with a small and elite field, like at the Masters Cup. How could that possibly work with smaller events and larger fields? Reading this article makes me fear that the players who aren't at the very top are being neglected, and that's bullshit.

Anyway, we won't have to worry about any of these proposed changes taking place for years.

kapranos
04-24-2006, 02:45 AM
How would RR works for normal tournament? 8 groups of 4 players? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Edit: Leo just said the same thing. ;)

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 02:46 AM
LOL.. but, it could completely ruin the tournament. The one year Delray was the week after the USO, it almost didn't make it to happen at all. So, I don't use this word often, but planning a huge event in South Florida in the middle of Hurricane season would be stupid.

Jess, I'm quite unclear about that, too. Would it be all events? Some events? Something new? Hard to tell what's meant by that I think :shrug:


Round robin just makes no sense to me... it pretty much restructures the entire sport and would have to change the entire ranking system accordingly. It also sucks.

I understand wanting to change the levels of tournaments and even making these "Super Tournaments" but round robin? That's going to kill lower ranked players who at this point, move ahead with ONE win that is an upset. To get by in round robin they'll need more than one. :scratch:

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 02:47 AM
Round robin only works with a small and elite field, like at the Masters Cup. How could that possibly work with smaller events and larger fields? Reading this article makes me fear that the players who aren't at the very top are being neglected, and that's bullshit.

Anyway, we won't have to worry about any of these proposed changes taking place for years.


And hopefully the players will get some common sense and protest this round robin nonsense. How are they going to do round robin with a 64 player field?

kapranos
04-24-2006, 02:49 AM
They probably want to make normal ATP tournaments 16 players draw. :o That would mean the top attractions of the tournament would play at least 3 matches each.

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 02:51 AM
They probably want to make normal ATP tournaments 16 players draw. :o That would mean the top attractions of the tournament would play at least 3 matches each.


16 player draws?

So anyone not in the top... what... 32 now if there are two tournaments going on, is out of luck? How would young up and comers ever crack the upper echelon?

kapranos
04-24-2006, 02:58 AM
Maybe they plan to have more than 3 tournaments in the same week or increase the size of challengers draw. I have no idea.

If we look at it, RR is only possible with 16 players. 32 means players would have to play 6 matches, that seems unrealistic to expect players to play possibly 6 matches at each tournament.

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 02:59 AM
It's impossible to know what was meant... I guess we'll just have to wait and see what it turns out to mean..

zicofirol
04-24-2006, 03:01 AM
ATP reveals intention to overhaul its calendar
THE MASTERPLAN

1) The four grand-slam tournaments and four or five “Super” combined events would be mandatory.

2) Round-robins introduced at events below grand-slams and “Super” combined.

3) Masters Series on ATP Tour would disappear.

4) Davis Cup final played in second week of November.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5205-2149222,00.html

5 super combined is fine but they shoudl keep the master series and make it 7 instead of 5 or 9.

Round Robin is a good idea, it will eliminate all the hack top 20 playes who can luck out with a draw in a good tournament and avoid playing anyone advancing far into the tournament.

I think with the draw sometimes too much is left up to chance round robin would even it out I think.

I think they also need to involve the Davis cup more into the atp, or at least promote it, its sucha great event, too bad in the USA the media ignores it.

Scotso
04-24-2006, 03:02 AM
Change is very, very bad. I like things the way they are.

Round robin is awful.

Scotso
04-24-2006, 03:03 AM
They won't do the round robin thing. It would kill the tour.

artlinkletter
04-24-2006, 03:04 AM
When the article refers to "super" tourneys, are they talking about the five they plan to reduce the already existing Master Series tourneys to?

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 03:06 AM
Maybe they plan to have more than 3 tournaments in the same week or increase the size of challengers draw. I have no idea.

If we look at it, RR is only possible with 16 players. 32 means players would have to play 6 matches, that seems unrealistic to expect players to play possibly 6 matches at each tournament.


For them to have more than 3 tournaments a week would water down the amount of "star players" in each tournament.. and I think that's the opposite of what they want to accomplish since every change the ATP makes is to focus on the stars and not anyone ranked outside the top 30.

Not to mention the complete lack of consistency if the Super 5 and Slams are draw format (which please don't mess with that...) and other tournaments aren't.

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 03:06 AM
They won't do the round robin thing. It would kill the tour.


I think that might actually be their plan.

El Legenda
04-24-2006, 03:08 AM
RR is a terrible idea

Deboogle!.
04-24-2006, 03:15 AM
I think that might actually be their plan.We'll have to just wait to find out what they really meant by that and just hope for the best :unsure:

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 03:22 AM
We'll have to just wait to find out what they really meant by that and just hope for the best :unsure:


I can't just hope for the best. I'm about to start some crazy protest and letter writing campaign against this round robin bs. :lol: Some outraged editorials ... I don't know.

Haute
04-24-2006, 04:04 AM
This may be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. This does not sound like they are trying to save tennis, but drive another nail (and maybe the final one) into the coffin. Where is the logic in having the players compete in more matches from week to week? Injuries are already an issue, doesn't that just complicate that? The tournament is screwed if a big name pulls out.

nobama
04-24-2006, 04:18 AM
Why were only 4 players involved in this discussion? And why Agassi when he'll be retiring soon? I don't mind more combined mens and womens events, but RR format? Yuck.

Action Jackson
04-24-2006, 05:02 AM
April Fools was 24 days ago.

*Ljubica*
04-24-2006, 05:43 AM
I admit I don't cope so well with change - but I just hate the idea of this :sad: Round Robin is a dreadul idea - and, as Jess says, they seem very keen to make it more and more diffcult for young players to break through. Also, seems like it will become even harder for lower ranked players to make a decent living :sad:

Action Jackson
04-24-2006, 05:46 AM
Change is good as long as the alternative is better, but De Villiers should go back to Disney with this Mickey Mouse idea.

Carito_90
04-24-2006, 07:53 AM
This may be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. This does not sound like they are trying to save tennis, but drive another nail (and maybe the final one) into the coffin. Where is the logic in having the players compete in more matches from week to week? Injuries are already an issue, doesn't that just complicate that? The tournament is screwed if a big name pulls out.

Exactly! What's the point on lowering the ammount of big tournaments played by year if they're gonna end up playing, I don't know, at LEAST 3 times every week in the smaller ones by having RR? Or is that their plan? Making players not want to play the smaller tournaments so that they lose popularity until they can't keep it up anymore? So they can stay with the only tournaments that provide good money to them?

This just looks like a move for the ATP to get more money, not for the players. No wait, it might work for the top 10 players, maybe. :rolleyes: This is ridiculous.

J. Corwin
04-24-2006, 08:06 AM
Pass the bong please. :smoke:

OddJob
04-24-2006, 08:06 AM
From the sound of things I hate it. The round robin idea BLOWS hard. I love it how players complain about the tour being too long but then turn around and play exho's for a fat check. They just want more time to play exho's it seems. I guess u can have ur cake and eat it too.

Jairus
04-24-2006, 09:22 AM
So, I have no idea what the plan really means, but it seems to have some potentially valuable parts:

1) RR - this is what everyone really hates...I'm not sure I'm a big fan, but it looks like it could make some sense. If the calendar is crowded, and no event is willing to go away, it makes most sense to cut down the # of players in each tournament and have multiple tournaments the same week. It might dilute star power, but right now, a lot of the big players don't even play many small tournaments. Consolidating them (date wise) makes some potential sense. And also, if you had the same number of total player spots across all the tournaments, then lower ranked players are unaffected (except the deal with upsets are harder, which I would imagine the ATP would support).

2) Lowering the # of masters series - This is kinda annoying, but might make more intuitive sense, having a masters just paired with each slam. However, I doubt that IW will go away, which makes things tricky. Because of Miami, IW, and Toronto all stay, that just leaves Rome and Madrid? (Didn't madrid get a long contract or something?)

3) Davis cup adjustment - Probably a good thing.

I am not really a supporter, but I don't think these things are as bad as people are making them out to be.

almouchie
04-24-2006, 09:46 AM
it looks positive
at least tehy recognize that something needs to be done
as for the super 4 or 5
I wouldnt want the masters series to be gone, maybe low them in number
as for round robin events, might add a bit of excitment
as for scheduling GS & others, its unlikely that anything will change
I would love to see more grass court tournaments leading up to wimby
& at least make the duration bt RG & Wimby longer

as for the 4 players included in the discussion, its probably a stepping stone
they want to discuss with players to see if they are receptive to the ideea, then when they have a clearer idea they can include most players in

Action Jackson
04-24-2006, 10:00 AM
They have been talking about changing the calendar since the 1970s.

Good to see that the greed is good motto is still living.

CooCooCachoo
04-24-2006, 10:01 AM
Hmm this sounds exciting but also kind of confusing...

I suppose if Roger, Rafa, Marat and Andre were all cool with it, then it must be ok

Andre's opinion should be of little importance, as he will be gone soon ;)

Jairus
04-24-2006, 10:25 AM
I think the much bigger revenue loss is players just not coming, a la Paris Indoors.

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 12:13 PM
The round robin idea is idiotic. Obviously the A.T.P. is just frightened of the potential revenue loss that would be caused by a top player or two crashing out in the first rounds, a la Roddick to Muller last year or - to take a W.T.A. example - Henin and Clijsters at Miami this year. And while it might be nice for lower-ranked players to get more matches under their belts, like everyone's saying that also means there's less of a chance that they could progress through the draw. Ugh. :banghead:


Exactly. It means Roger could have a bad game and you'll still see him in the next round. It means even if a lower ranked player has the upset of their lives, the still don't move on to the next round. It is going to completely segregate the sport and you'll see pretty much ONLY elite players in the later rounds. I would think it would be very hard for anyone not in the top 8 or so to ever win a tournament again.

It works for TV because now they can pretty much guarantee you Roger Federer and they will schedule their TV time accordingly. If you don't like Roger, you better start because he is all you will see televised for the rest of time.

Action Jackson
04-24-2006, 12:25 PM
It works for TV because now they can pretty much guarantee you Roger Federer and they will schedule their TV time accordingly. If you don't like Roger, you better start because he is all you will see televised for the rest of time.

This hasn't been approved as of yet, but there are plenty of problems with it.

Most of these top players had to come through the Futures and Challengers and what role will these have on the tour.

Let me present "The Mickey Mouse Haves Tour" and now the others are playing on the "We can play, but we are not marketable Tour".

amierin
04-24-2006, 12:32 PM
Interesting............I hope IW won't be one of those combined super events, but given the current owners, I think it'll be one........... But, this is rather confusing.........


I agree with you on this one mangoes. The folks who just bought in wouldn't have if they knew this would adversely affect them.

I think the overhaul is long overdue. I'm just surprised at who was consulted. I thought Ljubo was the player rep? Anyway at least this guy is trying. Let's hope the TD's don't get together and throw him under a bus. :)

My ideas on where?

Shanghai
Indian Wells/Houston/Miami
Buenos Aires/Sao Paulo/Acapulco
Paris
Rome

I see people are obsessing about the round robin thing. That is how the Masters Cup was played during the indoor season last year. I'm "meh" about it. Need more details.

Anything to fix Davis Cup would be welcomed by everyone.

Cervantes
04-24-2006, 03:04 PM
I'm not sure about the round robin thing. At first glance it looks pretty stupid cause there'll be less excitement in the early rounds. But on the other hand I can see why they'd want to implement this system: to get the top players to play each other more often. So we'd get less upsets/tension early on, but more rivalries later on in the tournaments.

Another thing the ATP might be thinking of is getting everyone to play a more fixed amount of matches. In the current system sometimes players go for months without a victory and thus only play one match each week. In a round robin system these players would also play three matches and could find a bit of form.

Action Jackson
04-24-2006, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure about the round robin thing. At first glance it looks pretty stupid cause there'll be less excitement in the early rounds. But on the other hand I can see why they'd want to implement this system: to get the top players to play each other more often. So we'd get less upsets/tension early on, but more rivalries later on in the tournaments.

There is a very simple way to do that.

They should just form like a Super League and these top players can just play among themselves. Better for TV etc, etc.

ae wowww
04-24-2006, 03:53 PM
I thought it was meant to be better?

2) Round-robins introduced at events below grand-slams and “Super” combined.
:eek: No thank you!

And how is making Grand Slams mandatory better?? Why not just re-jig the season and order of events. This barely briefens the calendar at all, surely?

LaTenista
04-24-2006, 05:21 PM
some boring cities in the middle of nowhere (Cincinatti).


If you can't spell Cincinnati properly, just call it Cincy.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say you've never been to the tournament, which is actually located in Mason, a small city that's rather quiet.

IMHO it's one of the best tournaments and most fan-friendly with lots of access to the players.

The Western & Southern Financial Group Masters & Women's Open can become a super combined event, no problem. :)

michelleg
04-24-2006, 05:36 PM
If you can't spell Cincinnati properly, just call it Cincy.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say you've never been to the tournament, which is actually located in Mason, a small city that's rather quiet.

IMHO it's one of the best tournaments and most fan-friendly with lots of access to the players.

The Western & Southern Financial Group Masters & Women's Open can become a super combined event, no problem. :)

Ahem, even the players and coaches will tell you that Mason is boring and that they are not fond of that tournament at all.

LaTenista
04-24-2006, 05:38 PM
Ahem, even the players and coaches will tell you that Mason is boring and that they are not fond of that tournament at all.

If you'd read what I said, you'd know I don't think highly of Mason either. ;)

kapranos
04-24-2006, 05:47 PM
If you can't spell Cincinnati properly, just call it Cincy.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say you've never been to the tournament, which is actually located in Mason, a small city that's rather quiet.

IMHO it's one of the best tournaments and most fan-friendly with lots of access to the players.

The Western & Southern Financial Group Masters & Women's Open can become a super combined event, no problem. :)

My point was, if you're going to make 5 "super" tournaments, common sense would suggest to put them in 5 "super" cities around the world.

Not Cincinnati.

Horatio Caine
04-24-2006, 05:49 PM
Someone please pass me a bucket...

Jairus
04-24-2006, 06:12 PM
My point was, if you're going to make 5 "super" tournaments, common sense would suggest to put them in 5 "super" cities around the world.

Not Cincinnati.


See, thats the problem..who would you cut?

IW - no way, just got invested in a ton, and already was a combined tourney.

Miami - the model for what they are looking for.

MC - The date has been cited as an issue, but most people consider it to be a good tournament from what i hear, a RG preview.

Hamburg - This will probably go.

Rome - Considered the biggest clay after RG I guess? So probaby will stay.

Canada - Will probably stay, since it has 2 big venues and could probably easily combine the two seperate mens and womens into one big event.

Cincy - Apparently a really friendly tournament (according to ppl above) and old enough that USA (I know, its a greedy country, what can I say) and the W&S FG would be angry and grumble.

Also, both Cincy and Canada will stay b/c they are the models for the US Open series that everyone seems to want to base this on.

Madrid - Didn't it get sponsored for a long time?

Paris Indoor - will probably go.

So thats 7 MS that will stay, 6 if you axe monte carlo, which would be a big deal. I don't see them going to 5 very easily.

Alvarillo
04-24-2006, 07:19 PM
round-robin format at circuit events :retard:

I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 super combined events as long as they are around the world and in big cities, not in the middle of the desert (Indian Wells) or in some boring cities in the middle of nowhere (Cincinatti).

So it could be:
1) Miami
2) Somewhere in Asia (Tokyo maybe).
3) Rome
4) Montreal or Toronto
5) ???

today appears in Spanish press that Madrid has tons of possibilities to host one of the 5 super combined events :worship: :devil:

Jimnik
04-24-2006, 07:33 PM
round-robin format at circuit events :retard:

I don't have a problem with 4 or 5 super combined events as long as they are around the world and in big cities, not in the middle of the desert (Indian Wells) or in some boring cities in the middle of nowhere (Cincinatti).

So it could be:
1) Miami
2) Somewhere in Asia (Tokyo maybe).
3) Rome
4) Montreal or Toronto
5) ???
I doubt it.

More likely, it will be:
1) Miami
2) Rome
3) Hamburg or somewhere else in Germany
4) Somewhere in Asia
5) Indian Wells or Monte-Carlo or Spanish tournament (if they have a 5th)

mallorn
04-24-2006, 07:35 PM
Why was this determined in a meeting with only four players behind closed doors? Shouldn't the entire ATP be discussing it?


Exactly. And the choice of players seems so arbitrary. :confused:

I'm surprised at how drastic the planned changes are. I was expecting some cosmetic adjustments but RR? :eek: This would completely change the Tour.

Jimnik
04-24-2006, 07:39 PM
my opinions on the super events leading up to the slams:

1. a super event before AO... upgrade adelaide or sydney?

2. a super event before FO... rome most probably

3. a super event before W... finally, a "masters" on grass! - queen's perhaps?

4. a super event before USO... disolve cincy and canada or combine it as another event in the calendar then push out miami from mar to aug/sept to make it the super event

5. a super event before TMC... should be balanced around the world so have asia take part of it... upgrade one of the asia events as a super (japan or thailand?)
NO WAY. With all the demands these other countries have to host tournaments, you want to move 3 slams and 3 "super" tournaments into 3 countries? How could Australia and Great Britain possibly justify hosting a slam and a "super" event.

I don't think players would appreciate playing in Miami in August.

Jimnik
04-24-2006, 07:53 PM
And hopefully the players will get some common sense and protest this round robin nonsense. How are they going to do round robin with a 64 player field?
The suggestion was a round robin format for the International Series tournaments, not the slams and "super" tournaments. Hence the draws would be reduced from 32 to 16, most likely. Players would play 3-5 matches depending on how far they get, but at least they would be garanteed 3 matches.

Lee
04-24-2006, 07:59 PM
Exactly. And the choice of players seems so arbitrary. :confused:


Not arbitrary, these 4 players are most marketable.

So, ATP totally ignores those players representatives from different ranking groups, huh!!!

spec7er
04-24-2006, 08:21 PM
My understanding of the super events is that it is largely based on the US Open Series. So I think they'll be grouping the tournaments leading up to the different slams. So it's like changing the structure in a sense, but also keeping the tournaments. They're dismantling the TMS because I would think those tournaments would be part of the super tournaments and they're trying to really build up to the slams.

The only thing I'm a bit wary about is the RR. But until we get the full details it would be difficult to speculate. :)

Fumus
04-24-2006, 08:23 PM
I think what they are trying to do to the schedule will end up looking something like this...

The season would start in February with some small tourneys every week that players can pick and choose admittance to and then during the first week of March have 1 large "super/masters" event played before the Aussie open, the Aussie open would be played a week later, in march/a little bit of April.

Then during April/a little bit of May have the same situation as we had before with the Aussie open. A month of small tourneys every week, a super event and GS in the following month.

So this takes us to June and we follow the same schedule...about a month of small tourneys, a super event and then Wimbledon in July.

Continue this formula for the US OPEN/Summer season. Small tourneys, super event, and GS.

The season ends with almost two months of small tourneys, and then a final year-end super event. This ends the season around October/November (DC final) giving tennis players ample time to rest and recover. (About 4 and a half months...Oct-Feb)

Fumus
04-24-2006, 08:31 PM
The thing about the way this is setup, is that every slam has lots of little events that build up the super event, which intern builds up the slam. For that month and a half fans will watch and see who is hot and picking up steam from week to week, until finally they play a gs. So it sorta splits the season up nicely and shortens the season, getting rid of alot of those extra months.

savesthedizzle
04-24-2006, 09:43 PM
The suggestion was a round robin format for the International Series tournaments, not the slams and "super" tournaments. Hence the draws would be reduced from 32 to 16, most likely. Players would play 3-5 matches depending on how far they get, but at least they would be garanteed 3 matches.


Many International Series events are larger than that in their current form. Barcelona is not a "super" event, it's an ISG with a draw of 64 with the top 12 players having byes in the first round so there are only 52 players playing. Barcelona would have to be downgraded to a smaller tournament to accomodate this round robin crap. So not from 32 to 16, but from 52 to 16. That's quite a cut. Not only that, but the current Masters events that do not make the cut to become a "super" event are going to be completely decimated. Fans in those areas will go from getting to see big names at their tournament when there are 2 tournaments a week to getting to see one or two when they have to have 5-6 tournaments a week in order to accomodate all the players when each tournament is made smaller.

Not to mention the issue of the increased segregation between different strata of player. It will make moving up the rankings increasingly difficult for young or lower ranked players if top players can have a bad day and still move through. There will be the elite players who make it out of the round robin groups and therefore maintain their high rankings and then there will be everyone else. Of course that's all the ATP cares about though, is their precious television scheduling and knowing that guys like Federer would have to lose 2 matches in the same week to not grace people's televisions during semifinals.

KoOlMaNsEaN
04-24-2006, 09:51 PM
I dont really like the idea to be honest..
only have 5 super tournaments is just ridiculous

Jairus
04-24-2006, 10:04 PM
I dont really like the idea to be honest..
only have 5 super tournaments is just ridiculous

y?

wally1
04-24-2006, 10:57 PM
Most of these ideas may or may not be beneficial, but the round robin idea is complete and utter bollocks. OK for a one off elite competition like the year end championships, but short of making the tennis balls transparent I can't think of a quicker way to kill off interest in the game.

Dusk Soldier
04-24-2006, 11:34 PM
Not to mention the issue of the increased segregation between different strata of player. It will make moving up the rankings increasingly difficult for young or lower ranked players if top players can have a bad day and still move through.It means that anyone can have a bad day and still move through. Not just the top players.

Maybe they would have eight seeds for the tournament. Each seed is thrown in a group with four other players. Have them all play eachother, and the winner from each group gets a spot in the quarter finals.

And then maybe points are assigned based on your rank in your group. Most lower ranked players who score an upset end up losing in the next round anyway. So if one RR victory gets you the same amount of points as a first round victory, then what's the big deal?

Alot of them travel around from tournament to tournament to only play one match. So at least with the RR system they would know that they get to play a couple of matches in the tourney instead of a probable one.

In the RR format, (At least the one I'm hypothesizing) you'd have to win at least two matches to go through to the quarters. How is that different than any other 32-draw tournament?

And I think you've got the segregation thing backwards. The players that can win matches more consistently should be top players. From what I'm reading it's the "mickey mouse" tourneys that would under go this format. The kind of tournament that's lucky to get even two top ten players. If you can't win one of those, then you're probably not all that concerned about ranking.

Tennis Fool
04-24-2006, 11:55 PM
I think what they are trying to do to the schedule will end up looking something like this...

The season would start in February with some small tourneys every week that players can pick and choose admittance to and then during the first week of March have 1 large "super/masters" event played before the Aussie open, the Aussie open would be played a week later, in march/a little bit of April.


Åren't you pushing into Aussie fall/winter with that schedule?

DeccyB123
04-25-2006, 12:22 AM
I like the current system. When you think about it, if you include pre-season, most professional sports only get a maximum of two months off, which is what the ATP allows at current.

The players that normally reach the TMC have to play into November, but considering they're the better players on tour, most do not play regularly in the lower tournaments, having plenty of weeks off during the year.

Jimnik
04-25-2006, 12:37 AM
Many International Series events are larger than that in their current form. Barcelona is not a "super" event, it's an ISG with a draw of 64 with the top 12 players having byes in the first round so there are only 52 players playing. Barcelona would have to be downgraded to a smaller tournament to accomodate this round robin crap. So not from 32 to 16, but from 52 to 16. That's quite a cut. Not only that, but the current Masters events that do not make the cut to become a "super" event are going to be completely decimated. Fans in those areas will go from getting to see big names at their tournament when there are 2 tournaments a week to getting to see one or two when they have to have 5-6 tournaments a week in order to accomodate all the players when each tournament is made smaller.
Barcelona, Queens, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel all have draws of about 48-56 players. But it doesn't matter. So the draw could be reduced to, say, 24 players with unseeded players having to play in the 1st round. This is no different to the current format in which these players have to play up to 6 matches in one week.

I disagree with the rise to 5-6 tournaments per week. The whole idea behind this new format is to get players to play less tournaments per year. They can have 2 or 3 tournaments per week with half the number of players playing. Since ALL players are garanteed at least 3 matches in EACH tournament, they don't have to enter as many tournaments as before. This makes it much easier for players to plan their calendar.

I also disagree with the cut from 9 to 4 masters series events. I think there should be at least 6 or 7. Madrid and Paris currently get weaker fields anyway so relegating a couple of TMS events shouldn't cause too much harm.

Not to mention the issue of the increased segregation between different strata of player. It will make moving up the rankings increasingly difficult for young or lower ranked players if top players can have a bad day and still move through. There will be the elite players who make it out of the round robin groups and therefore maintain their high rankings and then there will be everyone else. Of course that's all the ATP cares about though, is their precious television scheduling and knowing that guys like Federer would have to lose 2 matches in the same week to not grace people's televisions during semifinals.
No, I disagree that it will make it more difficult for young players to move up the rankings. You earn ranking points for EACH RR victory, whether you progress or not. Young players will benefit from a garanteed 3 matches with top 100 ATP players. What could be a better learning experience?

Off course the ATP cares about TV. Tennis would be nothing without TV. Personally, I wish we could get more TV coverage of the smaller tournaments.

kapranos
04-25-2006, 01:33 AM
"I also disagree with the cut from 9 to 4 masters series events. I think there should be at least 6 or 7. Madrid and Paris currently get weaker fields anyway so relegating a couple of TMS events shouldn't cause too much harm."

It's easier said than done. Cutting MS to 7 was part of their plan but it never materialised because there was too much protest from tournaments which would have been downgraded.

So it seems their new strategy is that instead of reducing the number of MS and pissing off tournaments, they're creating a new serie of tournaments (the "super" one). It's like changing one dollar for 4 quarters, but maybe they think it's going to be easier that way.

Merton
04-25-2006, 03:16 AM
I would be surprised if those changes happen because they appear to be detrimental to too many people. In particular, smaller tournaments that are currently popular and lower ranked players seem to be worse off. I don't like the round robin idea at all (outside the TMC end of season) because it could limit the mobility in tennis, one of its best characteristics is that lower ranked players get the opportunity to upset established players and improve. Now they would have to first, get invited to an event and second, pull of a series of upsets to qualify from the round robin. Also i cannot see how affecting smaller but profitable tournaments is a good idea. Why not let them be if they are profitable?

Jairus
04-25-2006, 06:43 AM
It means that anyone can have a bad day and still move through. Not just the top players.

Maybe they would have eight seeds for the tournament. Each seed is thrown in a group with four other players. Have them all play eachother, and the winner from each group gets a spot in the quarter finals.

And then maybe points are assigned based on your rank in your group. Most lower ranked players who score an upset end up losing in the next round anyway. So if one RR victory gets you the same amount of points as a first round victory, then what's the big deal?

Alot of them travel around from tournament to tournament to only play one match. So at least with the RR system they would know that they get to play a couple of matches in the tourney instead of a probable one.

In the RR format, (At least the one I'm hypothesizing) you'd have to win at least two matches to go through to the quarters. How is that different than any other 32-draw tournament?

And I think you've got the segregation thing backwards. The players that can win matches more consistently should be top players. From what I'm reading it's the "mickey mouse" tourneys that would under go this format. The kind of tournament that's lucky to get even two top ten players. If you can't win one of those, then you're probably not all that concerned about ranking.

I like the way you think. :D
Points per match won would really solve the whole situation with screwing over the up and comers. In fact they get MORE chances at at upset each time....which got me thinking...

...I'm reminded of something Weritheim always says: the fact that while we always hear about how the season is too long, most lower ranked players find the season too SHORT. They want to get matches in for their ranking, and getting knocked out of the first round many times makes that difficult. The round robin is really meeting in the middle to match players who want more matches (low ranked) and players who want less tournaments (high ranked.)
That to me is the single most compelling reason to adopt the round-robin.

Jairus
04-25-2006, 06:44 AM
I like the current system. When you think about it, if you include pre-season, most professional sports only get a maximum of two months off, which is what the ATP allows at current.

The players that normally reach the TMC have to play into November, but considering they're the better players on tour, most do not play regularly in the lower tournaments, having plenty of weeks off during the year.


The problem is, the tennis offseason DOESN'T include the "pre-season" Players seem to do training during the off season in the later parts of december, so they only get a week or two of truly being off competitive tennis.

Action Jackson
04-25-2006, 06:47 AM
As long as it favours the top and elite players and that's all that counts. The cash cows make the money for the tour, so that's all that should be taken into consideration.

warmy
04-25-2006, 07:38 AM
Now, I may be reading this wrong, but to my understanding they're talking about the US Open Series as a "Super" combined event. So when they say 4 or 5 "Super" events they're actually talking about like 20+ seperate tournaments that are grouped together to show case major events. You wouldn't be losing Masters events, you'd be adding more mandatory events.

But, I have no clue what that RR stuff is about.