Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tammo, Oct 28, 2012.
If ATP every took one away would it be Cincy, IW, or Miami? Personally I think Miami.
Monte Carlo. It's already non mandatory.
That was not the option!
Indian Wells and Cinci are two of my favorite stops of the year, so out of those three it would have to be Miami.
What is the point of this thread? What do you gain for taking away one of these events that people really enjoy watching and generates a ton of money?
Can I ask a random question? What would the world be without beef?
I'm going to say Miami.
Definately one of the outdoor hard events. 5 masters events out of 9 on outdoor hard is excessive.
Miami should change surface to green clay to add more variety and flavour to the tour. That would actually be a pretty logical move given that har-tru is such a surface in Florida, and that the European red clay season swiftly follows.
I believe that the tournament directors there seriously considered that change in surface a few years ago, but opted against it unfortunately.
Too many slow hard court tournaments are bad for men's tennis and the health of the players.
Why those 3? I wouldn't want to get rid of any of those.
I would chose either Shanghai, Paris or Madrid in that order of preference.
Out of the ones you listed it would have to be IW. Cinci is one of the only fast hardcourts left and Miami has history as a really prestigious event, at one point having 7 best of 5 matches.
Monte Carlo is one of the very best tennis tournaments.
Not for me. For me it is pretty much a snorefest.
Has been one of the most predictable tournaments of the season for the past few years now. I do like the scenery, though.
The great thing about masters is that they're mandatory and all the top players need to show (except for those who have earned exemptions). I don't get the point of a nonmandatory masters. Either make it mandatory or demote it to 500 status. I'd prefer the latter and the addition of a fast-grass masters to fill its spot.
To me a significant portion of establishing the prestige of an event is tradition. Monte Carlo has the most tradition of any of the Masters 1000 events. The fact that it is non-compulsory is irrelevant to the events value. The sports greatest players have competed in the event in parts or whole of 3 centuries now. It has always been regarded as one of the premier clay events. I would go so far to say that it should be the most protected of all of the Masters 1000 events.
To me that seems to be the event that seems the poorest attended. It only has recent history, hence not much tradition.
Not so. Canada (Montreal/Toronto) has the most tradition. It is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament in the world after Wimbledon and the US Open. It was founded in 1881. Monte Carlo was founded in 1897, Cincinnati in 1899. Those 3 are by far the oldest of all the Masters tournaments.
How about Monte Carlo, since it's not mandatory, it's obviously the weakest one. I'd go Shanghai next, they don't care over there.
Tradition = age?
I'm sorry sureshs but i'd have to say Cincinnati.
Age isn't all, but a great part of it.
Are u crazy. Indianwells and Miami are the two biggest M1000. They are 2 week event with a draw of 96 players(ATP and WTA combined).
All the remaining are 1 week, 56 player events.
If you consider all 9, then the ones to be considered to go are
-Monte Carlo (non-mandatory, exclusively clay)
-Shanghai (too far)
-Paris (by then most are finished)
For me, it would be Bercy. The competition is often weak because the best players are injured or exhausted at that time of the year. Changing the calendar and putting Bercy in february will mean that the players will arrive at Wimbledon completely washed up.
But since the OP asks to choose between Indian Wells, Miami and Cincinnati, it would be Indian Wells. Remove Indian Wells, put Miami on har-tru so that it's coherent with the following part of the season.
Cincinnati is perfect how it is. It's a good way to prepare the USO.
None of these events would be dropped, these are the star events. They can drop Paris and blue clay Madrid!
Sometimes I think 'tradition' is one of those terms like 'talent' or 'athleticism' where everyone knows about it but have their own idea on what it is.
That is the point of the thread, isn't it? Otherwise we all know by now that everyone would just choose tournaments like...
...oops, there you go.
Get rid of Shanghai, Paris and the elitist, nonsensical World Tour Finals.
Man... what's wrong with you, seriously?
Allright, I'll give you what you want. Have fun:
Skip the elitist Monte Carlo.
We know why
From the list mentioned - I'd say Indian Wells although it's a pretty big Masters.
From the 9 if I had to get rid of a Masters I'd say:
1) Shanghai - empty stadiums
2) Paris - too late in the year
3) Madrid - very unstable
The rest are a must.
I agree! Monte Carlo is a lovely well run tourney. It has one of the most beautiful picturesque views you will ever find at a tourney. Lovely place! . It is well organised too!.
Allright, I'll give you what you want. Wait for it....Monte Carlo!!!
*runs for his life*
None of the above. I love the hard court Masters. Get rid of clay court Masters - or make them like the blue clay earlier this year.
It's not actually getting rid of HC MS1000s, it's more about scheduling them so that they follow the slams and the surface it's been played on in a logical order.
One wonders why the AO has to come so soon in the new year, could they not schedule Miami & IW in Feb/March and have the AO in April. Then it rolls onto the European clay swing before FO. Give a few more weeks for players to adjust to grass and elevate Queens/Halle to MS1000 status to balance out the amount of clay/HC Masters.
After a summer break, continue with Canada & Cincy as normal before USO. For the final stretch of the season, Shanghai & Paris leading up to WTF is fine.
If anything, make 500s non mandatory so it gives players option whether to enter or not. Every player regardless of experience/age can opt to skip 1 Master per season.
I voted for Cincy even though it's one of the only faster courts left. I don't know why really. I just like IW/Miami more than Cincy. I agree with syc23 though. The scheduling of IW/Miami has never made sense to me. I also agree that I wouldn't ditch any of those events. Shanghai or Paris can go before those in the poll.
Miami, of the three offered.
Monte Carlo if all were on the table.
That's because it's world with a lot of meanings, just like marketing. Tradition could mean something with a lot of value passed from one generation to another. For example, Nadal and the other Spaniards see Barcelona as a very traditional event. I don't see, because I wasn't raised to think that. That's the one of the points why "age" is one of the main points of a tradition.
There's 9 MS but the OP is a ******* so he had only 3 options. However it's pretty clear that most fans want to keep IW, Miami and Cinci. IW/Miami both have the men and women competiting, with the highest draw(96). In the past years, IW is recognized as the 5th slam. It has been the most successful MS with growing popularity, most attendance and highest money/prize. Cinci is the only fast hard court we have left, the surface is the closest to USO, so it's an ideal event to prepare for the USO.
Many of you believe Monte Carlo is the first on the list to be remove. I agree that it's not a mandatory anymore and the ATP officials downgraded to an ATP500(which means player can opt out to play an atp500 on any surface to accummulate points). OTOH, if a player skip other MS events(mandatory) he loses points and there's nothing for him to make up for loss.
Have you watched Monte Carlo this year?
Players have been severely injured because of the poor, uneven clay suface. It's not worth losing a leg in the middle of the year.
Don't forget non-mandatory event doesn't help boost competition.
Monaco and Benneteau, top 40 players. And nobody got hurt in Madrid's Blue Clay.
IMO shanghai or MC ( don't get me wronging love the picturesque view and stuff but no one except nadal takes it seriously)
I would pick Cinci if it weren't for the lack if fast tournaments.
Indian Wells for it's racist incident against Serena and Venus.
Though if I had a choice it would be Shanghai(the crowd are uneducated about tennis, and the asian swing is worthless). Monte Carlo should stay because it is optional.
All the US MS 1000s are well attended.
Agree with much of your thinkling. The tour schedule as a whole needs a fresh look. That said, seems like Shanghai is especially weirdly situated (should be close to Aussie). Also, the way the Tour is set up now, Paris Bercy not at the right time or place.
Exactly, the asian swing should be near AO as it is in that part of the world enroute. The schedule is too much really. But when the players bring it up they get crucified.
Tell me when Monte Carlo has been non competitive. The masters of Shanghai and Bercy are generally less competitive than that one.
There are only 3 MM played on clay. I don't think it's necessary to remove one of them. And mandatory or not, Monte Carlo has a lot of tradition and prestige.
I didn't talk about Monte Carlo in my post BTW.
Why didn't OP but Monte Carlo in? That was the very 1st answer that came into my mind before even clicking the link. It's non-mandatory, this year weather has been horrible, plus random holes in the court that causes injuries.
the crappiest of them all, Monte Cagarlo!!!!
For me an ideal masters series line-up would be something like:
Indian Wells - Slow Hard Court
Miami - Green Clay (a much better and safer surface than a slow hard court, and this would add some nice surface variety to the tour)
Monte-Carlo - Red Clay
Barcelona - Red Clay (even decades before Nadal was on the tour this was still always a prestigious tournament and the true Spanish Open)
Rome - Red Clay
Montreal/Toronto - Fast Hard Court
Cincinnati - Fast Hard Court
Hamburg or any other major German city with a good indoor facility - Fast Indoor Carpet
So I would get rid of Madrid, Shanghai and Bercy. Shanghai is so poorly attended, and is yet another masters event on outdoor hard (the 5th of the year).
Bercy has been around since 1968, but really only became a big tournament in the late 80s. For many years, other indoor tournaments such as Philadelphia, Wembley, Stockholm, Milan, Sydney Indoor and Tokyo Indoor were all bigger and more important. Plus I don't think any one city should host both a slam and a masters event.
Madrid is just one big fiasco. The Madrid tennis grand prix tournament that was around from 1972-1994 was a nice event though, with best of 5 set finals and many elite clay court players playing there.
In an ideal world Halle and Queen's would also both be 500 events in the 2nd or a 3 week period between RG and Wimbledon (which thankfully we will get from 2015).
Separate names with a comma.