PDA

View Full Version : Does tennis need a new schedule ?


fadi edwan
05-17-2010, 11:43 PM
There is many problems in tennis that makes me think that tennis needs a new schedule:
1_It is still about: GS tournaments , masters series (just for the men. and not all of them has the
same importance), and the final event of the season.
2_It is still in the same counteris and the same cities. Madrid, paris, miami, rome ....etc.
3_It is still individual game, just for the rich player who has enough many to travel around the world.
4_Woman tennis is just about SEX !! As what you can see from the latest designes, and that's what
Michael Stich said before: "women tennis sells sex". Even the balls girls became in the past few years
a breast models!!! I wonder; where the kids ball (who will be the players in one day) disapeared!!!
5_The women's schedule starts after the men's final in many tournaments!! Most of the ladies
tournaments, the seats were empty untill the semi-finals!! although, in the men's events ( in the same
tournament) the seats were full from the first round!! So; why they don't make it an one big
tournament!!
6_The big names in tennis refuses to play for their countries. There is too much pressure on them, they
must play 2 or even 3 matches every round and for maybe 5 sets for each match!! without getting any
points, and thats why they prefer to not play.
The countries tournaments (Fed Cup, Davis Cup) looks like individually playing more than a team work
(the Swiss team is Roger Federer alone!!).
7_In tabel tennis, they have changed the rules and the ball's size to make it more fun to watch. In tennis,
the speed of serve in the women tennis reached more than 200km/h (124 Mph). In
ROLAND GARROS 2009 (I'm not sure about the name of the GS tournament), 10 (ladies!) have
served more than 190km/h!!.
In ROLAND GARROS 2005, the average speed serve for Henin in the final was 185km/h (115Mph)
and for Mary Pierce was 177km/h (110Mph). In one of the masters series events in 2007, the average
speed serve for Federer agaist Tommy Robredo was 182km/h (113Mph), and for Robredo was
173km/h (107Mph). Now who's the man?!.
The rackets became larger and heavier, and the balls became faster. How can this help the talent
players to compete and show their skills?! Are not they who bring the excitement for the game?!
Are not they whom the fans want to watch?!
8_If you look at the number of the famous tennis players (in both ATP,WTA), you will find it less than the
number of the famous in real madrid alone or barcelona alone...etc. Which means that tennis still not a
global game.
9_Tennis ranking is so difficult to follow, and the tennis players are collecting most of their points from the
GS tournaments, which means that the other tournaments is worthless.
Last year Serena Williams ended the season as world number one, although; she won just 3
tournaments, and she collected 4000 points from just 2 events (Wimbledon, Australian Open) and that
was enough to reach the last event in the season (which she won it). Safina and Wozniacky won more
events than her, and reached finals more than her.
Safina and Del Potro are in the top 5, although, they didn't play since the start of the season!! their
points have been collected from the last year results!! which means that the ranking in this week
has been put depending on the players' results from the last year.
If the other tournaments is worthless, How can this help tennis to be a global game?!
10_Every week, there is 3 tournaments. Some of the players prefer to play in tournament A, some in
tournament B, or C. some prefer to take a rest, and play in the next week. So, the top players
(especialy in WTA) are playing separately most of the season.

I don't know what is your opinion, but I have some ideas (in general) for a new schedule:
1_It could be : 14 tournaments + the 4 GS + the end event of the season (for the best 16 not just 8, and
the ladies event should be mixed with the men's event in one tournament).
2_Each tournament from 6 rounds, for 2 weeks.
3_After every 2 events, can be a week or more as a rest, or for a small tournament (without getting
points) just for the players who didn't play enough matches becuase of injury ....etc (if they want).
4_The 14 tournaments could be like this: 3 in North America, 5 in Europ and 6 around the globe, maybe
as this : 2 in Asia, 2 in South America, 1 in Africa and 1 in Australia.
Note: the cities who will host the events, must be choosen by a lot every year.
5_ The ranking, should be put depending on the results of the same season more than the year before.
6_ The Team events (FED, DAVIS) could be made in 2 years rather than annually. And make it in
the end like this: The best 8 teams play in one tournament as the world cup.

AznHylite
05-17-2010, 11:46 PM
Maybe if you put your words into something more organized, people would take the time to read it.

fadi edwan
05-18-2010, 12:50 AM
There is many problems in tennis that makes me think that tennis needs a new schedule:
1_It is still about: GS tournaments , masters series (just for the men. and not all of them has the
same importance), and the final event of the season.

2_It is still in the same counteris and the same cities. Madrid, paris, miami, rome ....etc.

3_It is still individual game, just for the rich player who has enough many to travel around the world.

4_Woman tennis is just about SEX !! As what you can see from the latest designes, and that's what
Michael Stich said before: "women tennis sells sex". Even the balls girls became in the past few years
a breast models!!! I wonder; where the kids ball (who will be the players in one day) disapeared!!!

5_The women's schedule starts after the men's final in many tournaments!! Most of the ladies
tournaments, the seats were empty untill the semi-finals!! although, in the men's events ( in the same
tournament) the seats were full from the first round!! So; why they don't make it an one big
tournament!!

6_The big names in tennis refuses to play for their countries. There is too much pressure on them, they
must play 2 or even 3 matches every round and for maybe 5 sets for each match!! without getting any
points, and thats why they prefer to not play.
The countries tournaments (Fed Cup, Davis Cup) looks like individually playing more than a team work
(the Swiss team is Roger Federer alone!!).

7_In tabel tennis, they have changed the rules and the ball's size to make it more fun to watch. In tennis,
the speed of serve in the women tennis reached more than 200km/h (124 Mph). In
*ROLAND GARROS 2009 (I'm not sure about the name of the GS tournament), 10 (ladies!) have
served more than 190km/h!!.
In ROLAND GARROS 2005, the average speed serve for Henin in the final was 185km/h (115Mph)
and for Mary Pierce was 177km/h (110Mph). In one of the masters series events in 2007, the average
speed serve for Federer agaist Tommy Robredo was 182km/h (113Mph), and for Robredo was
173km/h (107Mph). Now who's the man?!.
*The rackets became larger and heavier, and the balls became faster. How can this help the talent
players to compete and show their skills?! Are not they who bring the excitement for the game?!
Are not they whom the fans want to watch?!

8_If you look at the number of the famous tennis players (in both ATP,WTA), you will find it less than the
number of the famous in real madrid alone or barcelona alone...etc. Which means that tennis still not a
global game.

9_Tennis ranking is so difficult to follow, and the tennis players are collecting most of their points from the
GS tournaments, which means that the other tournaments is worthless.
Last year Serena Williams ended the season as world number one, although; she won just 3
tournaments, and she collected 4000 points from just 2 events (Wimbledon, Australian Open) and that
was enough to reach the last event in the season (which she won it). Safina and Wozniacki won more
events than her, and reached finals more than her.
Safina and Del Potro are in the top 5, although, they didn't play since the start of the season!! their
points have been collected from the last year results!! which means that the ranking in this week
has been put depending on the players' results from the last year.
If the other tournaments is worthless, How can this help tennis to be a global game?!

10_Every week, there is 3 tournaments. Some of the players prefer to play in tournament A, some in
tournament B, or C. some prefer to take a rest, and play in the next week. So, the top players
(especialy in WTA) are playing separately most of the season.

I don't know what is your opinion, but I have some ideas (in general) for a new schedule:

1_It could be : 14 tournaments + the 4 GS + the end event of the season (for the best 16 not just 8, and
the ladies event should be mixed with the men's event in one tournament).

2_Each tournament from 6 rounds, for 2 weeks.

3_After every 2 events, can be a week or more as a rest, or for a small tournament (without getting
points) just for the players who didn't play enough matches becuase of injury ....etc (if they want).

4_The 14 tournaments could be like this: 3 in North America, 5 in Europ and 6 around the globe, maybe
as this : 2 in Asia, 2 in South America, 1 in Africa and 1 in Australia.
Note: the cities who will host the events, must be choosen by a lot every year.

5_ The ranking, should be put depending on the results of the same season more than the year before.

6_ The Team events (FED, DAVIS) could be plaied in 2 years rather than annually. And make it in
the end like this: The best 8 teams play in one tournament as the world cup.

fadi edwan
05-19-2010, 03:13 AM
what is your opinion guys?
don't you have any idea for tennis or you like tennis as what is available rightnow?

Gaab
05-19-2010, 03:33 AM
1. Well, the best ranked players fight for the most prestigious tournaments, while lower-ranked players have challengers, ATP 250 & 500 to improve their rankings and gain confidence.

2. What could/should be changed? I don't think changing locations every two year would be profitable for the organizers. I mean, is organizing a tournament in a city for just one or two years worth it?

3. It's an individual game, baut aren't federations supposed to help their players one way or another? If a newcoming player is successful enough, he might gain enough money to travel more, no?

4. Physical appearance is a stronger factor in women's tennis than in men's tennis, that's true. Women's game is not that attractive currently, hopefully that may change one time or another. As for the models-ballgirls, you can find it either funny or stupid, but sex drives the world anyway. It's fortunate that every tournament has not turned yet to a model exhibition.

7. The speed of the ball and the current technology do not prevent the spectators to enjoy matches yet, I think. I agree that a match with 70+ aces is pretty boring to watch, but that's the exception, not the rule.

9. GSs are heavy-weight points-wise, but I don't think that makes other tournaments worthless. Maybe they give too much points, but matches are longer (at least for men), etc.

10. This gives players choice, which I think is good. I don't need to see the same players playing the same players all over again to enjoy watching tennis.

As for your ideas on the schedule, why delete some minor tournaments and impose rest weeks? A player who lost in a first round of a tournament would be happy to play the next week... and gain points to avoid slipping down the rankings.

fadi edwan
05-19-2010, 02:03 PM
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.main&ArticleID=138885

"Q: What do you see as the biggest issues facing the ATP World Tour?

McEnroe: I think it's the same old, same old. There's always talk about the schedule being too long, and I think that's an issue that continues to hang out there. I think the smaller events are struggling a little bit. The majors are thriving obviously and for the most part so are the Masters 1000 events. ... It's the smaller tournaments, particularly in the U.S., that you worry about. I think those are the ones that need some help. I also think it would be useful to take a good, hard look at Davis Cup, and if there is a way to get the top players to commit to play more often than they do it would be a positive. But it doesn't seem the ITF is really willing to do that."

Pwned
05-19-2010, 02:11 PM
Current schedule sucks. There should be less required tournaments so top players can rest if they need to and low level players have a chance to gain ranking points and money. There should be at least 1 grass 500 and 1000. The off season should be longer. There should not be HC tournaments right after the AO. Tournaments like Miami and IW float in the middle of nowhere schedule wise and lead up to nothing. The AO should move further into the season to accommodate the switch. There should be more time between the FO and Wimbledon for grass tournaments.

There should be 5 distinct sections to the year that end with the big tournaments.

Early HC ends with AO.
Clay ends with FO.
Grass ends with Wimbledon.
Summer HC ends with USO
Indoor ends with YEC.

Li Ching Yuen
05-19-2010, 02:17 PM
We should have 10 Masters Series on grass and no grand-slams.

That's the best schedule you need.

Fedfan1234
05-19-2010, 02:30 PM
Current schedule sucks. There should be less required tournaments so top players can rest if they need to and low level players have a chance to gain ranking points and money. There should be at least 1 grass 500 and 1000. The off season should be longer. There should not be HC tournaments right after the AO. Tournaments like Miami and IW float in the middle of nowhere schedule wise and lead up to nothing. The AO should move further into the season to accommodate the switch. There should be more time between the FO and Wimbledon for grass tournaments.

There should be 5 distinct sections to the year that end with the big tournaments.

Early HC ends with AO.
Clay ends with FO.
Grass ends with Wimbledon.
Summer HC ends with USO
Indoor ends with YEC.

I agree, I like that schedule a lot better than the current one. I doubt it will ever happen though. WMB or RG management will never agree to move the tournament. From what I understand they see it as admitting that their tournament is inferior, don't ask me why I think it is a pathetic way of looking at things. In my opinion it would only be good for WMB to move the tournament 2 weeks later in the schedule.

Bryan Swartz
05-21-2010, 01:37 PM
To improve the schedule, there are two competing interests that need to be resolved. There is a desire to shorten the schedule(benefiting player health and probably also increasing average quality of play), and a desire to expand the professional class of players. The problem is that these two are at odds. If you have less events that can bring in money, which will happen if the schedule is shortened, because the top players will appear less frequently and therefore there will be less interest in those who do, then you actually will end up lowering the amount of money available.

Personally, I think this is worth it in the long run, as it is the best way to continue growing the sport. I totally agree with Pwned's 5-part season idea. As far as the OP's concerns:

1. At the top level, shouldn't it be? Shouldn't consistent success at the biggest events be what matters for a top ranking?

2. This is exactly how it should be. Maintaining events in the same cities builds fan loyalty, tradition, etc. I don't see how anything is wrong with this: in fact, I'm totally in support of it.

3. Tennis is always going to be an individual game, I don't think that's a problem. As far as the rich part, the answer to that is to grow the sport so there is more money available, which will gradually increase the professional class of players. Other than the length of the schedule, I think the ATP is headed in the right direction on this.

4. This is true, and pretty much always will be. The men's game is at least to some degree superior from an excellence in the sport athletically and physically standpoint. Physical appearance is generally more important to society for women than men. We can be irritated at these facts if we want, but I don't see how they are going to be able to be changed.

5. Not all venues are large enough to support two tournaments going on at once. I'm in favor of as many joint events as possible, but for smaller events it just isn't feasible.

6. The lack of participation in Davis/Fed Cup is IMO clearly related to the schedule being too long. As it is, you have a 4-week commitment with less points reward than a Masters title(800 pts. max for undefeated player on a champion, far, far less for most players). With most players at the higher level expecting to play multiple matches every tournmant they enter, playing that many weeks a year forces them to choose somewhat between commitment to country and commitment to career. A shorter schedule can remove or at least greatly reduce that choice(more on that at the end of this post).

7. I don't think further slowing down the game is the answer. I think the surfaces are just about where they should be, perhaps speeding Wimby up a bit would be good, but it does allow for a variety of games right now. Speeding up grass a bit(though not to mid-90s levels) and more grass events(again more on this later) would allow a real comeback of sorts for serve and volley. The differences in style required for different surfaces is a good thing, making everything clay is not good for tennis.

8. No, it doesn't mean tennis is not a global game -- it clearly is. It means tennis is still a niche sport and doesn't have great popularity in most countries. Which means, again, continue to grow the sport. It is growing. But nothing compares to your example of soccer. I think it's unrealistic to expect tennis to get to that level, and no amount of scheduling changes will make it happen.

9. Other tournaments are not worthless. They just aren't as important as GS. The available points to an ATP player are less than half from the GS. Specifically, 8000 from GS, 8000 from MS, 1500 from MC, 2000 from 500s, 500 from 250s. Total of 20000 from a perfect season. Only 40% of that from Slams. I don't see how that's too high.

10. There is not 3 tournaments every week. Some weeks there is. Others, there is only 1 or 2. But if the top players were playing together at even the smaller events, how would an up-and-coming player be able to break through? The 500s and 250s should be events where there are some high-ranking players and a number of lower players, I don't see anything wrong with this.


I don't think there's any purpose to making a smaller group of all two-week events as the OP suggests. The smaller events do serve a purpose. I would completely agree, as mentioned, with the 5-part season(8 weeks each for a nearly 3-month off-season, and a less strenuous schedule). AO would be late February, RG in April, Wimbledon early June, USO mid-August, Master's Cup first week or so of October, rest of Oct/Nov/Dec off completely.

I also would reduce the number of Masters events to 7 and make them all mandatory again. 2 Clay, 2 Grass, 1 for each of the three hardcourt sections. Also, Indian Wells and Miami would be reduced to 56-draw so they could be one-week events.

There would be three more events countable(a best 14 format, not best 18), which would include 2 500s at most so that there would be a reason for the top players to play at least 1 250 event.

Overall, this approach would free up at least 6 weeks compared to the current schedule for top players, allowing them to have more freedom to play Davis Cup without tiring themselves out, and having a real off-season. It would cost some in terms of support for smaller events in the short term, but long-term I think is what the sport needs to grow.

fadi edwan
05-25-2010, 01:55 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_wertheim/05/24/monday.baguette/index.html

Caroline Wozniacki [injured her ankle] at the Family Circle Cup in April. Why in the world has she continued to play each week rather than rest the ankle? On one hand, it is commendable that she tries to play through her pain; on the other, one hates to see such a bright star jeopardize her chances of a deep run at Roland Garros. What gives?
--Aaron Dias, Charleston, S.C.

This is Kerry Wood career management. Lots of points on the table, lots of appearance fees, lots of pressure from lots of sources to remain as visible as possible. Stop me if you've heard this one before. After winning her first match, Wozniacki was asked about her industriousness.
She replied: "Well, you know, there are some rules on the WTA Tour, and we have to follow those rules. Maybe it would have been better if I could have taken a few weeks off, but those are the rules, and I did what I had to do."

statto
05-25-2010, 02:02 PM
Current schedule sucks. There should be less required tournaments so top players can rest if they need to and low level players have a chance to gain ranking points and money. There should be at least 1 grass 500 and 1000. The off season should be longer. There should not be HC tournaments right after the AO. Tournaments like Miami and IW float in the middle of nowhere schedule wise and lead up to nothing. The AO should move further into the season to accommodate the switch. There should be more time between the FO and Wimbledon for grass tournaments.

There should be 5 distinct sections to the year that end with the big tournaments.

Early HC ends with AO.
Clay ends with FO.
Grass ends with Wimbledon.
Summer HC ends with USO
Indoor ends with YEC.

This is spot on IMO.

Pwned
05-25-2010, 05:44 PM
This is spot on IMO.

TY. The entire schedule would need to be revamped obviously. But I think that is what needs to be done to both curb injuries and increase intensity at tournaments the top players do play in.

Tennis_Monk
05-25-2010, 06:14 PM
Just about every executive at ATP, tennis tournaments know that Tennis schedule needs a fix.

However fixing the schedule means lots of rearranging and some tournaments have to give certain things up.......not seeing it happening.

People talk about change but when the time comes for them to change, they seldom do.

BullDogTennis
05-25-2010, 06:37 PM
holy wall of text batman

fadi edwan
05-26-2010, 01:06 PM
http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/555/1/

How can this help tennis to be a global game?
Written by Sergio Cruz
May 25, 2010 at 03:13 AM

Fadi Question:
Tennis ranking is so difficult to follow, and the tennis players are collecting most of their points from the GS tournaments, which means that the other tournaments is worthless.
Last year Serena Williams ended the season as world number one, although; she won just 3 tournaments, and she collected 4000 points from just 2 events (Wimbledon, Australian Open) and that was enough to reach the last event in the season (which she won it). Safina and Wozniacky won more events than her, and reached finals more than her Safina and Del Potro are in the top 5, although, they didn't play since the start of the season!! their points have been collected from the last year results!! which means that the ranking in this week has been put depending on the players' results from the last year.
If the other tournaments is worthless, How can this help tennis to be a global game?!

Answer:

You answered it does not help!

The ranking concept of the ATP and WTA is a dinosaur.

The tennis ranking should start in January of each year at Zero points.

The seeding for the Australian Open should be based on the last ranking of the previous year and from then on let the fireworks begin!

Hope this will help you.

Sergio Cruz

Marius_Hancu
05-26-2010, 01:07 PM
yes, another week of grass ... Masters Nov 1st, not 22nd.

Bryan Swartz
05-27-2010, 09:30 PM
I don't see how the schedule is a dinosaur. Resetting to zero at the beginning of the year is really bad idea I think, as it would have a lot of negative consequences. One bad tournament would make a top player at the bottom of the heap right away, while the later tournaments wouldn't be worth nearly as much, because the benefit of their points would be much less lengthy. The Master's Cup would be all but useless most years, since the points would drop off before the next tour event.

I guess the question I would ask is why is it worse to have a player like Del Potro who had a good finish to '09 but nothing to start '10 stay high in the rankings, but if someone had a strong start to '10 but poor finish that's ok for them to stay up there?(which would happen under the proposed suggestion). How is July from one year to June of the next somehow a less important 12-month period than Jan-Dec?

I think there should be schedule changes but this one would make things a lot worse IMO.

ViscaB
05-27-2010, 09:34 PM
Less hard court and more grass is needed. Hard courts are so bad for the players health.

Tennis360
05-28-2010, 09:45 AM
There should be more time between the FO and Wimbledon for grass tournaments.



I agree. and there should be at least one master's tournament played on grass. clay courters are lucky there lots of masters events on clay so they could up their ranking if they do really well....so it's unlucky for players whos game thrive on grass. Plus, I really like grasscourt tennis and it's a shame it is too short.