The reduction of the season schedule not only affected Paris this year, but also Basel, Valencia and Petersburg f.i.
My assumtion goes as follows:
The ATP doesn't benefit from cutting the season. They just met the wishes of the top players.
We remember the case "MonteCarlo" (mandatory?, 1000pts?). It's not that the ATP didn't already try to relieve the schedule of the top players. But it's not just up to them!
The tournaments have a say! Contracts have to be made that both sides agree with.
What we see currently is a diplomatic policy, probably sort of an interim compromise between the ATP and the tournaments.
Guy Forget now put's it that way that he hopes for Paris to be played in February in 2014 and the ATP board has to decide on it.
Well, that can't be the whole truth.
The ATP board can't change dates of tournaments simply at will.
(Otherwise they could move the Paris Masters to mid July, as well.
There needs to be consensus among the ATP and several other tournaments.
In this case it's those taking place in fall as well as those originally taking place in February!
There are also contracts with the London WTF.
And there is the Asian swing after the USO, which is mostly outdoors.
How to play the London WTF (indoors) directly after it? (I refer to the plans for 2014.)
Both, ATP and tournaments were not ready for so very big changes to the schedule.
Maybe in 2014, but that depends on how the negotiations procede.
I personally find this Paris-London situation/constellation this year quite interesting.
Indoor tennis is not so much about endurance but about movement and focus.
Maybe Djokovic and Murray treat Paris and London as one step this year, try to win both, gather steam in Paris, step it up for London.
Maybe this new date is even better for Paris than the previous date was, when the top guys regularly tanked.
I'm curious what will happen at the Paris Masters this year.
It's perfectly possible that the whole idea of this 2012 schedule wasn't so stupid.
If you want to reduce the schedule, it doesn't go without effects. ("From chipping come chips.")
They decided to share these effects among Paris, Basel, Valencia, Petersburg, etc.
Other decisions would have caused other problems.
It's easy to critizise everything, but how to make it better and satisfy every side?