2016 ATP Sudden Death League - Schedule/Options (Poll)

[TopDawg]

We've been kicking around some ideas on the schedule/format for next season so I thought Boozyuzi's suggestion of running a poll was a good idea. I know that many have left the boards until next season so we'll do another poll around the Australian Open.

Options:
1. No change to current schedule - would be 29 events next season with addition of the Olympics - all results countable.

2. Small change to schedule - during the weeks of 2/22 (Acapulco/Dubai), 6/13 (London/Halle), & 10/3 (Beijing/Tokyo) you'd only play 1 of the 500-level events instead of 2. To replace the 3 that you didn't play we add 3 of the 250-level events. In the end we'd have 29 events. All results countable.

3. Big change to schedule - keep all current tournaments and add 9 250s for a total of 38 events. You could play as many tournaments as you want but there would only be 22 countable results comprised of:

15 - 4 Majors, 9 Masters Events, Olympics, & World Tour Finals
7 - 500s, 250s, Davis Cup

4. Big change to schedule - keep all current and add 250s for 38 total events WITH all results counting.

5. Big change to schedule - have 38 events but you could only play 22 events total - 15 mandatories and 7 from the pool of 500s, 250s, DC.


I'd say we'll almost definitely do the 250s in Brisbane and Sydney to jump start the year.

Potential Schedule:
1/4 - Brisbane 250 (AO Series)
1/11 - Sydney 250 (AO Series)
1/18 - Aussie Open

2/8 - Rotterdam 500
2/15 - Rio 500
2/22 - Acapulco & Dubai 500s

3/4 - Davis Cup 1st Round
3/7 - Indian Wells 1000
3/21 - Miami 1000

4/4 - Houston or Casablanca 250
4/11 - Monte Carlo 1000
4/18 - Barcelona 500

5/2 - Madrid 1000 (FO Series)
5/9 - Rome 1000 (FO Series)
5/16 - Nice or Geneva 250 (FO Series)
5/23 - French Open

6/6 - Hertogenbosch or Stuttgart 250 (SW19 Series)
6/13 - London & Halle 500s (SW19 Series)
6/20 - Nottingham 250 (SW19 Series)
6/27 - Wimbledon

7/11 - Hamburg 500
7/15 - Davis Cup Quarters
7/18 - Washington DC 500 (USO Series)
7/25 - Rogers Cup 1000 (USO Series)

8/1 - Atlanta 250 (USO Series)
8/8 - Rio Olympics
8/15 - Cincinnati 1000 (USO Series)
8/22 - Winston-Salem 250 (USO Series)
8/29 - US Open

9/16 - Davis Cup Semis
9/19 - Metz or St. Petersburg 250

10/3 - Beijing & Tokyo 500
10/10 - Shanghai 1000
10/17 - Vienna 500
10/24 - Basel 500
10/31 - Paris 1000

11/14 - World Tour Finals
11/25 - Davis Cup Finals

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Thanks for doing this and thanks for including my option (option 2) of adding the 3 250's and allowing one per week when there is 2 tournaments on.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

Personally I say keep it as it is, I don't feel as if the system is broken, so why try to fix it?

Options 3-5 seems like they would only serve to complicate matters. Options 1 and 2 probably keep things the simplest, which would probably be best.

"Once a plan gets too complex, then everything can go wrong, if there's one thing I learned in 'Nam."

 

[Backspin1183]

Keep the way it is with a minor change that when two tournaments are taking place in same week like Beijing-Tokyo, players should choose only 1.

 

[Backspin1183]

If you're doing Sydney (250) why not include Auckland too? Would love to play my home tournament, no?

 

[PDJ]

As is.

 

[Boozyuzi]

I went for small change.. Only play 1 of the 500's and fill the gaps in with 3 or 4 250's. Play the alternate 500 next year.. And tweak the scoring system in the early round so that there is an incremental increase in points.

And add the Davis Cup points as the happen, before WTF.

 

[bezs]

I'm fine with the way it is.

 

[stringertom]

If you're willing to add on to 38 events, I'll play them all with all results to be counted. Otherwise, status quo is fine by me.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

To those voting keep as is. Can I ask what your bigger concern is for option 2? Is it that you can only play one 500 per week or is it cause we want to add 3 ATP250 tournaments? Thought the latter option would be a good option cause the existing calendar had us playing no tournaments in September (a little bit of US Open) and missing out of the first 2 weeks of the year which are always fun.

(Not trying to change minds, just curious what people don't like about suggestion 2).

 

[PDJ]

I voted 'as is' because I'm of the thinking "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"
It's not as if we're struggling for players.

 

[rainingaces]

If you're willing to add on to 38 events, I'll play them all with all results to be counted. Otherwise, status quo is fine by me.

I agree, the bigger sample size for the rankings the more reliable they will be but if you miss just one event you will be severely punished. So the small change looks the best and fairest option.

 

[Seth]

I love SDL and would like to see some 250s thrown in without having to choose between two 500s (I want to play both).

For those who don't want to play that many events, 22 out of 38 can be chosen to go toward the rankings.

Option 3 for me.

 

[mavsman149]

I love option 3! Every event but only the top 22 point totals count towards your score. I would recommend no Olympics or DC though as those aren't worth points in real life.

 

[stringertom]

Counting only 22 of 38 kinda takes the "sudden" out of SDL, no?

I would also like to rewards winners a bit more somehow. There seems to be a growing trend to make safe picks at QF/SF levels to maximize average net points instead of taking a risk to go FTW. Maybe, a bonus for four or more titles. NPA is not in my dictionary of favorite acronyms.

 

[ArcspacE]

Voted Option 3 but happy to remain with Option 1 as well

Great work, mate

 

[mildred]

As-is, and allow us to enter as many tournaments as we'd like

 

[gn]

I could do well at 500s but not at 1000s. So one who does well at Masters will win it by default.
Let's play all and count all. Come on. What's wrong in playing 2 tourneys a week? It's double-fun.
If to play 1, field will be divided into 2. Let's play all tourneys.
One who is consistent throughout the year shall be rewarded.

 

[PDJ]

I could do well at 500s but not at 1000s. So one who does well at Masters will win it by default.
Let's play all and count all. Come on. What's wrong in playing 2 tourneys a week? It's double-fun.
If to play 1, field will be divided into 2. Let's play all tourneys.
One who is consistent throughout the year shall be rewarded.

Actually that does seem fun.
OK, I'll change my vote.
I do agree with @Aussie Darcy that players shdnt be penalised for actually playing the game regularly.
I also think @stringertom idea that if you win a certain number of tournaments (up until the WTF) you should get a bonus - and I'm one of the cautious players that goes for points rather than titles.

 

[gn]

Counting only 22 of 38 kinda takes the "sudden" out of SDL, no?

I would also like to rewards winners a bit more somehow. There seems to be a growing trend to make safe picks at QF/SF levels to maximize average net points instead of taking a risk to go FTW. Maybe, a bonus for four or more titles. NPA is not in my dictionary of favorite acronyms.

Safe-picking Semi-Finalist will get 720 points. A winner will get 2000 points at Slams. That alone is 3 times more than SFinalist. Adding more points will make it difficult to catch up. Let people play waiting game. At some point, people will roll the dice.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I could do well at 500s but not at 1000s. So one who does well at Masters will win it by default.
Let's play all and count all. Come on. What's wrong in playing 2 tourneys a week? It's double-fun.
If to play 1, field will be divided into 2. Let's play all tourneys.
One who is consistent throughout the year shall be rewarded.

I agree I don't mind either option. I just don't like the idea of a limit of countable tournaments. Really takes the fun out of it.

 

[gn]

time to bring this up.

 

[Beacon Hill]

Thanks very much for the poll. I voted for Option 3: we can all play as much as we want, but only 22 count. I think the year end title would be more meaningful that way. Some of us are injured during the year, or choose an extended rest period, but it would be nice to have a realistic shot at the year end title even if we miss a couple tournaments. In the end, very appreciate of what the organizers are doing, and have fun playing when I do.

 

[Tennis sensation]

I would rather have option 1 or option 2.

Option 3 and option 4 seem too big a headache for the organizers.

I don't think everyone would like option 5 because of the strategy angle but I am cool with it too.

 

[Seth]

Is this being chose via pure democracy? I hope not, because I want Option 3.

If the organizers are willing and able to run that amount of events, why limit SDL?

 

[stringertom]

If this is a revote, keep it as it is or add and play unlimited with all results counting.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I like it the way it is, but up for anything.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Is this being chose via pure democracy? I hope not, because I want Option 3.

If the organizers are willing and able to run that amount of events, why limit SDL?

I completely agree with you except option 3 does limit SDL. It only allows 22 tournaments to be counted. Which is somewhat a punishment for those who are able to play week in week out. I like the idea of 38 tournaments but with only 22 being counted then it's about the same as it is now! Do you mean perhaps option 4 which allows all tournaments to be counted with no restrictions?

 

[Beacon Hill]

I completely agree with you except option 3 does limit SDL. It only allows 22 tournaments to be counted. Which is somewhat a punishment for those who are able to play week in week out. I like the idea of 38 tournaments but with only 22 being counted then it's about the same as it is now! Do you mean perhaps option 4 which allows all tournaments to be counted with no restrictions?

You wouldn't be punished for playing more than 22. Just the opposite - your best 22 would count, and your chance of having the best 22 possible increases with every event you play. So you're rewarded for playing all the events.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

You wouldn't be punished for playing more than 22. Just the opposite - your best 22 would count, and your chance of having the best 22 possible increases with every event you play. So you're rewarded for playing all the events.

If i do well in 28 tournaments it only matters for the best 22. If I was able to play every week while another person wasn't, why should we have the same tournaments counted? What I mean is, another person said it's good for them cause they can't play every week which yes sucks for them but I can play each week so there should be a benefit for that, in this instance it's having all tournaments countable.

I don't like that new method at all with tournaments being restricted and points being taken out of it. Say I win the first 22 tournaments of the year, then I'm done and shouldn't bother playing the next 16 as I've reached max points.

Id much rather just leaving it as is instead of making it this option. I liked the count all option but that has less votes

 

[gn]

Let's start with at least Brisbane and Sydney. I don't want to be killed with boredom for another 2 years.