ATP Calendar - Should the tennis year be shortened?

[Moxie]

Interesting conversation started by @MargaretMcAleer, though we know it is on-going. The poll allows you to chose multiple options, and your choices are anonymous. Let's discuss.

 

[Moxie]

Obviously, I made some choices by designing the poll, but I'm not trying to drive the conversation. My thinking is that, if you don't want to change the calendar, discussion rather over. However, if we really were to shorten the calendar, something has to give. I think journeyman tennis players may want to keep the 250s, futures, challengers, etc., so they can gain points and make money, but we're talking top-tier ATP here. Is it that we only have 8 MS tournaments? Could be the answer. Dropping MC may seem like sacrilege to some (as it would me, our most beautiful venue, and very historic tournament,) but it's the only MS that is not required. Why? And WTF? Better to drop Madrid. Or Bercy, except that it's the only indoor HC MS.

I know basically everyone wishes there were a MS on grass. So the ATP pays for the upgrades, say, to Halle, and accommodates it on the calendar. If you dropped Madrid, that might make room for it. And if you keep the AO push to just a bit later, you might get something even resembling an off-season.

Thoughts?

 

[Kieran]

Well, there’s a couple of things here: why shorten the season? We have more professionals than ever, and they need matches to earn an income. The sport is getting bigger, and so much so that even as recently as the 90’s people were suggesting we need more slams in the calendar to reflect the growth of the game. Making the year shorter will reduce revenue, no?

A question: why move the Australian Open? Weather-wise isn’t it in the right calendar spot? That’s just a question, I’m not disputing the proposition. You’d recommend extending the break after the WTF into maybe February?

The idea of doing it to prolong players careers doesn’t fully stack up: players are peaking later and playing longer now. Sampras was a tired old goat at 27. A retired old goat at 31. Borg was gone aged 25, more or less. They’re the great players but it was across the field.

A grass court MS event could fit in the calendar now, as it is. Start it two weeks before Wimbledon - that’s a week after Paris ends. The only current contender for a pay rise and a promotion is Queens, but it works be up for grabs.

I’d leave the North American tournaments as they are before the US Open, they have a solid history and a great pedigree in the sport. Really, all the MS events have their reasons to be, so I wouldn’t get rid of any of them. Well, Madrid and Shanghai are newbies, they can be changed, but their slots in the calendar are okay.

So I don’t know of any good reason to shorten the calendar and now I’ve added an MS title to the grass season - so there!

 

[Fiero425]

Well, there’s a couple of things here: why shorten the season? We have more professionals than ever, and they need matches to earn an income. The sport is getting bigger, and so much so that even as recently as the 90’s people were suggesting we need more slams in the calendar to reflect the growth of the game. Making the year shorter will reduce revenue, no?

A question: why move the Australian Open? Weather-wise isn’t it in the right calendar spot? That’s just a question, I’m not disputing the proposition. You’d recommend extending the break after the WTF into maybe February?

The idea of doing it to prolong players careers doesn’t fully stack up: players are peaking later and playing longer now. Sampras was a tired old goat at 27. A retired old goat at 31. Borg was gone aged 25, more or less. They’re the great players but it was across the field.

A grass court MS event could fit in the calendar now, as it is. Start it two weeks before Wimbledon - that’s a week after Paris ends. The only current contender for a pay rise and a promotion is Queens, but it works be up for grabs.

I’d leave the North American tournaments as they are before the US Open, they have a solid history and a great pedigree in the sport. Really, all the MS events have their reasons to be, so I wouldn’t get rid of any of them. Well, Madrid and Shanghai are newbies, they can be changed, but their slots in the calendar are okay.

So I don’t know of any good reason to shorten the calendar and now I’ve added an MS title to the grass season - so there!

The season is only too long for the greedy money grubbers that can't stand sharing with the rest of the tour! Players outside the top 20 depend on a full schedule! Novak finally cut his schedule only performing in 3 or 4 Masters events of late! Fedal have been coming and going as they pleased for years! Other players need every week to accumulate points and money!

 

[Moxie]

Well, there’s a couple of things here: why shorten the season? We have more professionals than ever, and they need matches to earn an income.

Margaret brought it up, and it does get discussed. Note that I did make the point that this isn't about lower tournaments, because the lower ranked players do need to make a living. I get that.

The sport is getting bigger, and so much so that even as recently as the 90’s people were suggesting we need more slams in the calendar to reflect the growth of the game. Making the year shorter will reduce revenue, no?

Personally, I don't think we need more slams, though I get why there is an Asian swing, if I take your point. (More Slams really would muddy the waters. lol.)

A question: why move the Australian Open? Weather-wise isn’t it in the right calendar spot? That’s just a question, I’m not disputing the proposition. You’d recommend extending the break after the WTF into maybe February?

I took that one from Margaret, and also from the notion that they pushed it this year. I'm just trying to find a solid break, not campaigning for anything, in particular.

The idea of doing it to prolong players careers doesn’t fully stack up: players are peaking later and playing longer now. Sampras was a tired old goat at 27. A retired old goat at 31. Borg was gone aged 25, more or less. They’re the great players but it was across the field.

This I took from a comment that Courier made on TC today. That in his time they really traveled a lot and played a lot of exhos, and burnt out earlier. I agree with the notion that the careers are already going longer. But if we DO protect the players more, they CAN play longer.

A grass court MS event could fit in the calendar now, as it is. Start it two weeks before Wimbledon - that’s a week after Paris ends. The only current contender for a pay rise and a promotion is Queens, but it works be up for grabs.

It's OK, if you want a MS to happen directly after a Major. The problem with Queens, as I understand it, is that because it is old and lovely and within a specific geographic location, it would be hard to retrofit it to accommodate what MS facilities need to have, which is why I suggested Halle. I love the Queens event. Maybe ATP needs to think outside of the box as to how to make a MS on grass, like practice courts that are not on site, but not too far away.

I’d leave the North American tournaments as they are before the US Open, they have a solid history and a great pedigree in the sport. Really, all the MS events have their reasons to be, so I wouldn’t get rid of any of them. Well, Madrid and Shanghai are newbies, they can be changed, but their slots in the calendar are okay.

So I don’t know of any good reason to shorten the calendar and now I’ve added an MS title to the grass season - so there!

Fair enough...that's an opinion, and I appreciate it. But yes, you also just lengthened the calendar, you old so-and-so.

 

[El Dude]

They should make the Masters balanced, 3 of each surface. Then make it retroactive to 2003 extrapolate how many more Roger would have won and add that number--probably 15-20--to Roger's tally, so he has 43-48.

 

[Moxie]

They should make the Masters balanced, 3 of each surface. Then make it retroactive to 2003 extrapolate how many more Roger would have won and add that number--probably 15-20--to Roger's tally, so he has 43-48.

I know you're taking the piss, but there are 4 surfaces, right?

 

[rafanoy1992]

In my opinion, I think the ATP Tour Finals should be held in either the first whole week of October or the week after that. I know they there are two Masters 1000 tournaments after the US Open and before ATP Tour Final. But, it really should only be one of them (probably Paris Masters because it is in Europe). In addition, the Shanghai Masters starts 4 weeks AFTER the US Open Final. That is too long of a gap between the two tournaments especially at the end of the long season.

Also, I would not mind switching one of the hardcourt Masters 1000 into a grass Masters 1000 to be easier for the body.

Finally, the way the Davis Cup is currently set-up is mind boggling to say the least. The previous format should have never been changed. I like it better (I think players like it better) when it was a year long event with different venues and courts. Now, you are having players play a competitive team event at the end of a long season. Just not a bright idea to change the previous format.

By the way, shortening the season should not diminish the lower ranked players to get some type of compensation. What the ATP can do is add some small tournaments even after the end of ATP Tour Finals so other players can some money/points if they desired to...

 

[rafanoy1992]

In fairness, the ATP has done well in terms of scheduling events from January to the end of the US Open final. Yes, they can definitely reduce some tournaments (Madrid) and maybe spread out the tournaments more (I am not talking about the events AFTER the US Open final) like pushing the AO tournament into two weeks later so players can have more time to train and prepare.

Let's do a hypothetical scenario here: If the ATP Final finishes October 10th or 17th this year, then the AO starts at the last Monday of January of 2022, then it will give them three months of break from big/main competition. Now, I did not consider here the current format of Davis Cup (which is ridiculous) and the ATP Cup right before the AO tournament.

Three months of not competing in a big/main competition should help the ATP Top players recover both mentally and physically.

 

[El Dude]

I know you're taking the piss, but there are 4 surfaces, right?

What is the fourth? Are you splitting hards? Or talking about carpet? That hasn't been used on the ATP tour since 2009, though is still used in the ITF, I believe.

But if carpet, even better: Roger would've killed on carpet, and Rafa wouldv'e sucked. Novak, meh.

Or better yet: replace all clay tournaments with blue clay, and give Roger 7 or 8 Roland Garros' and reduce Rafa to 3.

Fun fact: Roger's first title in Milan was on carpet.

 

[Moxie]

What is the fourth? Are you splitting hards? Or talking about carpet? That hasn't been used on the ATP tour since 2009, though is still used in the ITF, I believe.

But if carpet, even better: Roger would've killed on carpet, and Rafa wouldv'e sucked. Novak, meh.

Or better yet: replace all clay tournaments with blue clay, and give Roger 7 or 8 Roland Garros' and reduce Rafa to 3.

Fun fact: Roger's first title in Milan was on carpet.

I thought lots of folks around here insist that indoor hards is a separate thing, and that's why the YEC should be kept on them. If that's not your position, I'm fine with that. Then we could drop Bercy, and we could talk about rotating the YEC by surface which even ol' Fiero was recently in favor of.

I know carpet went the way of the dinosaurs, and I absolutely agree that Roger would have loved to see it stay, and it would have sucked for Rafa. I'm not sure if Novak would have been "meh," because he seems to be an all-surface guy, though carpet doesn't do so much for returners. You may as well play on ice, which is why they dumped it. If we still had carpet, maybe even Ivo Karlovic would still be playing. And John Isner would be higher in the standings. You interested in that?

But leaving carpet aside, because that doesn't really help the argument of shortening the calendar. You seem quite snide about this whole idea. You don't want to shorten the calendar? I'm just curious. I'm rather agnostic, I'm just offering the conversation, since it came up. I like a lot about the calendar, as it is, and I can see the problems with big changes from the POV of the ATP/ITF.

 

[Moxie]

In my opinion, I think the ATP Tour Finals should be held in either the first whole week of October or the week after that. I know they there are two Masters 1000 tournaments after the US Open and before ATP Tour Final. But, it really should only be one of them (probably Paris Masters because it is in Europe). In addition, the Shanghai Masters starts 4 weeks AFTER the US Open Final. That is too long of a gap between the two tournaments especially at the end of the long season.

Also, I would not mind switching one of the hardcourt Masters 1000 into a grass Masters 1000 to be easier for the body.

Finally, the way the Davis Cup is currently set-up is mind boggling to say the least. The previous format should have never been changed. I like it better (I think players like it better) when it was a year long event with different venues and courts. Now, you are having players play a competitive team event at the end of a long season. Just not a bright idea to change the previous format.

By the way, shortening the season should not diminish the lower ranked players to get some type of compensation. What the ATP can do is add some small tournaments even after the end of ATP Tour Finals so other players can some money/points if they desired to...

I like your idea of squeezing the end of the year after the USO. They can get it all over with, and then take a real break. I also agree that whatever they have done with Davis Cup makes no sense, and I don't think anyone likes it. BTW, is that ATP cup, or whatever they invented to usurp Davis Cup still happening?

 

[Kieran]

Or better yet: replace all clay tournaments with blue clay, and give Roger 7 or 8 Roland Garros' and reduce Rafa to 3.

I admire your gall, said Julius Caesar, as he trampled through France…

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

halle is also too small a site to hold any grass masters.
shorter season ?..i think paris needs to go, at least that 1week saved,

shanghai masters is probably finished for good with the way china is going withits no compromise neo-communist authoritarian quasi military junta..so where is that tourney going?

shoving the ao forwad a week or two would be popular with most fans and players.

 

[Moxie]

This is sort of tangential, but did anyone else see Novak in favor of Best of 3 at Majors? Thoughts?

Explained: Why does Djokovic want only three sets at the Grand Slams?

The World No. 1 says tennis audiences are old, and the matches need to be shorter in order to grab the attention of younger people who are more restless. But the premise of the ‘old’ audience may be faulty.

indianexpress.com

 

[Ellentonboy]

This is sort of tangential, but did anyone else see Novak in favor of Best of 3 at Majors? Thoughts?

Explained: Why does Djokovic want only three sets at the Grand Slams?

The World No. 1 says tennis audiences are old, and the matches need to be shorter in order to grab the attention of younger people who are more restless. But the premise of the ‘old’ audience may be faulty.

indianexpress.com

Well, you would be taking away the tradition of best of five sets at the Majors. How many times have we seen a player come back from two sets down and win, we would lose that possibility and the excitement that generates. Many players are slow starters, and need best of five to prevail. With best of five the better player usually finds a way to win, with best of three the loss of a serve or a poorly played tie breaker can end an individual's campaign. I know I am simplifying the process but let's keep the best of five in the majors. In my humble opinion......

 

[tented]

Well, you would be taking away the tradition of best of five sets at the Majors. How many times have we seen a player come back from two sets down and win, we would lose that possibility and the excitement that generates. Many players are slow starters, and need best of five to prevail. With best of five the better player usually finds a way to win, with best of three the loss of a serve or a poorly played tie breaker can end an individual's campaign. I know I am simplifying the process but let's keep the best of five in the majors. In my humble opinion......

Agreed. Plus, switching to best-of-3 would negate the sport’s entire history of statistics and records. Winning Wimbledon 8 times, Roland Garros 13 times, or the Australian Open 9 times wouldn’t be as difficult to achieve, thus taking away the efforts Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have put into winning them.

 

[Fiero425]

Agreed. Plus, switching to best-of-3 would negate the sport’s entire history of statistics and records. Winning Wimbledon 8 times, Roland Garros 13 times, or the Australian Open 9 times wouldn’t be as difficult to achieve, thus taking away the efforts Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have put into winning them.

Finally a fk'n voice of reason! IMO it would be insane and blasphemous to lower the level and history of majors like this with BO3! They have been around for over a century and to placate spoiled, petulent athletes that don't want to "work for it" would be a travesty! Making these historic events BO3 is a joke and I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime which is short thank GAWD!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Finally a fk'n voice of reason! IMO it would be insane and blasphemous to lower the level and history of majors like this with BO3! They have been around for over a century and to placate spoiled, petulent athletes that don't want to "work for it" would be a travesty! Making these historic events BO3 is a joke and I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime which is short thank GAWD!

BTW 50 is the new 60 okay

 

[Fiero425]

BTW 50 is the new 60 okay

Just for me, that's unfortunate! I was hoping not to see the state of affairs the way it is around the world! There's no reason for such chaos!