Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The first 64 seeded layers will get a bye, so that they will still play a maximum of 7 matches.
If a first round loser will get 15000$, that will cost only 2 million dollar more for each slam (including both men and women), which is less than 1% of the revenue, and the tournament will last 1-2 more weekend days, so that the tournaments might even end up profiting even more.
That will make a huge economical change for the players ranked 101-200, that will get in, and the players ranked 201-400, that will get into qualifying.
In the long term, the depth in the tour should be much higher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
The first 64 seeded layers will get a bye, so that they will still play a maximum of 7 matches.
To me, it seems wrong to have byes in a Grand Slam. All the players should play the same number of matches.

I also dislike the general idea of increasing the number of players in Slams. I do agree that money is a problem for lower-ranked players, but this is not the answer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,118 Posts
Did you receive this sms of Novak as well? Step by step he thinks Marko could enter in GS when the field will be extented to top 1000.
Good luck Nole
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chirag

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
To me, it seems wrong to have byes in a Grand Slam. All the players should play the same number of matches.

I also dislike the general idea of increasing the number of players in Slams. I do agree that money is a problem for lower-ranked players, but this is not the answer.
So where will the lower-ranked players' money come from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
it's actually wrong to have byes in ATP matches as well
Agreed. The Tour is so badly run, after a while you stop noticing some things, and just hope it won't get any worse (2-year ranking has me worried).

So where will the lower-ranked players' money come from?
Somewhere else. I do not have fully-developed ideas on this, so it would be pointless to fan any flames.
 

·
ツ
Joined
·
7,561 Posts
Not a bad idea but there would be some problems. One of the less obvious ones is that spectators would have to wait until the third round for a match with two top 60 ranked players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
Please NOOOO!!!!!!! There are already enough shitty 1st round matches. No point watering down the field any further. Quallies give plenty of players the opportunity to get in the tournament, no need for expansion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
So where will the lower-ranked players' money come from?
They always can gambling against themselfs.
I am kidding, that's really good question. It's really frustrating that players don't have enough money for going on tournaments. First 250 or 300 should have enough money, not just first 100.
And top 300 are "challenger players", so it is under ingeration of ATP, not ITF. ATP just need to take some money from World Tour to Challenger Tour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
They should expand to 256 players in a Grand Slam. 8 Rounds of action. The cutoff for the MD would be top 256-270ish, qualies cutoff would be top 400. This way some of my favorite crappy players get a shot for a Slam.

Imagine that, 8 gruelling rounds and dozens of mugs to go around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
Please NOOOO!!!!!!! There are already enough shitty 1st round matches. No point watering down the field any further. Quallies give plenty of players the opportunity to get in the tournament, no need for expansion.
Cmon man, have a heart. That means my main boy Conor Niland won't get it if we don't expand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,379 Posts
No, we already have this - its called the qualies. You make a good point about the pay but why not just increase the prize pool for challengers and futures?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
GS's are under ingeration of ITF's. ATP need to take up minimum fees for organisation of an Challenger and take down fees for World Tour. But that is hard to do, because organisators even now don't have enough money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68,049 Posts
come on they wont do this...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
They should expand to 256 players in a Grand Slam. 8 Rounds of action. The cutoff for the MD would be top 256-270ish, qualies cutoff would be top 400. This way some of my favorite crappy players get a shot for a Slam.

Imagine that, 8 gruelling rounds and dozens of mugs to go around.
256 players means extra 4 matches of best of 5 for the top players per year. /that's why I suggested to give them a bye.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top