Do you think the French Open, Wimbledon & US Open are too close together?
To me it would make more sense to have a good decent hardcourt season, culminating in the Australian Open in January or February.
They have the clay season more or less alright, but I feel it merges into Wimbledon too quickly, and with the surface similarity these days, it allows those who do well in the clay part of the season to ride in their confidence to Wimbledon almost straight away.
Why not have a good grass season culminating in Wimbledon in August or so, then a summer hardcourt swing with the US Open in October/November, then a condensed but decent carper/indoor season culminating in the YEC, say middle-late December. Then a few weeks offseason.
I think the way it is has its benefits, but also it's detractions. For example, the way it is, if a player picks up a moderate injury in April or may, thats basically his GS chances buggered for the rest of the year. As the other 3 slams are within less than 4 months of each other.
If a player picks up even a minor 1-2 week injury in late May, that can be their whole Wimledon chances in jeprody.
Finally, momentium is gained the way the game is now. A player only has to be good for like 3 months of the year like Nadal was in 2010 and they win 3 slams.
I think it would bring back so much surface versatility, variety into the game. Not this one man dominance, be it Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. Theres only ever one man dominating tennis anymore and I think the schedule has a lot to do with it.
Tennis authorities are far too steeped in tradition. The schedules were invented when tennis was a precision game of serve and volley. Now its a war of attrition, and fitness and burnout are so much more a case now. They need to wake up and realise this. Dont let players whole season go down the tubes because they get a 2-3 month injury. Thats not fair. Its no wonder players cant win slams after their mid to late twenties, and its only going to get worse I think.
What are your thoughts? I know it will never happen, tradition, time zones, other sports etc. But wouldnt it be nice. Or is it fine the way it is?
Federer is a clown who only beat mugs, making his slam victories less meaningful.
Now since Nadal won many of his titles against a clownish Federer, it means Nadal's victories are also cheapened.
And finally, since Nole beat a clownish Nadal in many of his slam victories, his achievements are further cheapened.
Conclusion: everyone is a clown, playing in a neverending clown era.