TW Staff
Administrator
ATP Commissioner for a Day
by Weller Evans
Many of you have watched CENTER COURT with Chris Myers on The Tennis Channel. At the end of each interview, Chris asks his guest, "If you were Commissioner for a day, what changes would you make?" Last month in General Pro Player Discussion, a number of you did just that and weighed in on changes you would like to see in professional tennis. From many of the thoughtful suggestions, it is obvious we have a great deal of passion out there for the sport. Let's examine some of your ideas and the challenges faced in implementing them.The Tour Calendar: If we were to start with a blank sheet of paper in creating the perfect tennis calendar, certainly the two Slams on the most disparate surfaces (Roland Garros and Wimbledon) would be separated by more than two weeks. Also, you probably would not have players compete for five sets in extreme Australian heat immediately following a two-month off season. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of starting over so the tennis calendar needs to be assembled around the existing weeks of the Grand Slams, the crown jewels of the sport. As great as having a Masters Series event two weeks before the Australian Open would be, Tennis Australia has wrestled recently with moving it back as late as March and yet, in the end, has been reluctant to even move the Open back one week, with the issue of summer holidays a major consideration. In addition, with January being Shanghai's coldest month (average high/low 45 F/ 32 F), China would not be the answer even if some space were created to start the year.
The other perennial calendar debate is adding an extra week between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Again, while this would allow for a mandatory Masters Series event on grass (probably Queens, provided the historic facility could support it), most players are not keen to extend the grass court season as they view another week on the anachronistic surface as a waste of time.
As for Davis Cup every TWO years, most federations, especially those playing outside of the World Group (which are plenty), are unwilling to give up the revenue which a home tie provides. The real issue is the protracted schedule. Can even the most avid tennis fan, let alone the casual sports observer, maintain the enthusiasm generated by the US win over Spain last month until mid-September...5 months down the road? Hardly. And the point made by Moose Malloy that a country can win the Cup in December, only to very quickly turn around and lose it in February shortly after its celebration party has ended is definitely another shortcoming of the present format.
US Open:
Tie-Break in the Final Set: The tie-break has been a trademark of the US Open since it debuted there in 1970. Like Wimbledon's signature "predominately white" clothing rule, every Slam insists on its uniqueness...none of them are looking to mirror the other.
Super Saturday: A big hit with fans and television viewers since they were treated to a marathon day of tennis in 1984. It is a two-ticket day now, with the Women's final at night, so the men play in the afternoon - still not the optimum schedule for one of tennis' majors. Imagine if it rained on Thursday night for the last of the Men's four quarterfinal matches. One player would face the unenviable task of needing to win THREE best of five set matches in the final three days of a 14-day event. Players who reach the final weekend of the US Open don't like it, but since they all come back the following year, it is difficult to coerce the USTA to change. How about a Sunday Women's final and a Monday night Men's final? Believe me, Monday Night Football is not the formidable competition for US television viewers it once was.
Other Suggestions:
Eliminate The Let: A solid idea. Why is it OK to play the ball off the net during a point but not on a serve? Plus, its one less officiating call to make, thereby reducing potential controversy, not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as well where there is no officiating. Chances of it happening? Not great. The players still oppose it (I have mentioned in this column before how players resist change) although more are open minded to it than a decade ago. If the ITF would for once go out on a limb and take some initiative by changing the rule, the players would quickly adapt and adjust and the initial grumbling would dissipate in no time.
Wood Racket Tournament: Those of us who grew up keeping our rackets in a "press" would love to see this. Johnny Mac would be the first in line to enter. We just saw a fun special event on a hybrid court...how about another one?
Replacing Rebound Ace with Hard courts for the Australian Open: A suggestion taken quite seriously by Tennis Australia, to the point where they announced last month that Rebound Ace would be replaced in 2008 with a cushioned acrylic surface. However, they are quick to assert that while it will have "a lower rubber content and be firmer under foot" it is "not a hard court" in an apparent attempt to preserve the tournament's uniqueness from the other Slams (i.e. US Open). It will be interesting to see the players' reaction when they begin next season "down under".
Limit Medical Time Outs: Long overdue as already addressed in previous columns.
Unlimited Hawk-Eye Challenges: As Bottle Rocket points out, there is no limit on ball mark inspections on clay (it is in the hands of the chair umpire) so why is there a limit with this system? Out of challenges, Serena could have lost BEFORE this year's Australian Open final on a bad call, even though the technology was available.
Olympic Tennis: There are more different passports in the locker room than ever. This is in large part because of the introduction of tennis to the Summer Games two decades ago, through the unrelenting efforts of the late Philippe Chatrier. Once part of the Olympics, national tennis federations had a much better chance of governmental funding than they may have had otherwise. The players may look at it as just another big tournament, but those that participate all enjoy the Olympic experience.
Tennis Masters Cup for 10: Two groups of five players would add 8 additional round robin matches. More to the point, it would add more meaningless or irrelevant matches later in the week. Great for us tennis junkies but the sport marketing experts would argue it dilutes the product. Seems like the existing format has stood the test of time.
Reintroduce the Bonus Pool: This may be on its way back. Great for the players, but it may not be as effective as Moose Malloy would hope. When offered a few years ago, no amount of money could get the likes of Sampras, Agassi, even Rafter to play the required number of events...they left millions of dollars on the table. Yet, for a young Marat Safin, he admittedly played several top events visibly injured, cheating you the fan, just to qualify for his bonus.
Increased Prize Money in Challengers: Would be great, although even under the current criteria it is extremely difficult for the promoters of many of the over 150 challenger events worldwide to break even. It is a fine line between "keeping the pedal to the metal" on prize money minimums while continuing to encourage events to be held. Since the ultimate goal of any professional is to make it to the Tour level, it is essential to maintain as many opportunities to gain valuable ranking points as possible. Shorten the Entry Deadline for ATP Events: In what was a spirited and at times personal debate recently on Talk Tennis about Guillermo Canas being forced to qualify in Rome, it was suggested that the entry deadline for ATP tournaments be reduced from the current six weeks. I should remind the readers that this is not the first time that a player has a great week, raises his ranking considerably, yet misses tournaments where the entry lists have already been made. Happens a lot on all levels. The obvious reason for an entry deadline is to allow for both tournaments and players to get organized (there is tremendous interest generated on Tuesdays in player lounges and tournament offices when these "cut-offs" are released). Six weeks seems to have worked for over 25 years but if (and its a big IF) both parties could live with a shorter deadline, why not? Just keep in mind that the chance still exists that a player with very recent success could still miss out.
Defending Champion to Return the Following Year: Fans and tournament directors, especially of the smaller tour events, would love this rule to be implemented. No need to pay an appearance fee to a defending champ who is a top player or a player who then zooms up the rankings. However, for every Wayne Arthurs there are dozens of other players for whom this would be costly, not only financially but to the autonomy of their playing schedules as well. A player has 51 weeks to secure his spot in next year's event, using the ranking points he just earned as a springboard. As a last resort, there is always a wildcard if he was such a big hit in winning the event the previous year.
No Night Play and No Roof Closings at Outdoor Events: Those horses have already left the barn. Even Wrigley Field has lights! Tell me you didn't enjoy watching the memorable Connors and, more recently, Agassi matches at the US Open after getting home from work? As for turning an outdoor tournament into an indoor one when the rains hit...perhaps you've heard? Even Wimbledon, the bastion of tradition, is building a roof for Centre Court.
These are just some of the possible ideas for the future of the ATP Tour. If you think you've got what it takes to be an ATP Commissioner for a day or just have a comment you'd like to contribute to the possible evolution of the tour, please feel free to chime in.
by Weller Evans
Many of you have watched CENTER COURT with Chris Myers on The Tennis Channel. At the end of each interview, Chris asks his guest, "If you were Commissioner for a day, what changes would you make?" Last month in General Pro Player Discussion, a number of you did just that and weighed in on changes you would like to see in professional tennis. From many of the thoughtful suggestions, it is obvious we have a great deal of passion out there for the sport. Let's examine some of your ideas and the challenges faced in implementing them.The Tour Calendar: If we were to start with a blank sheet of paper in creating the perfect tennis calendar, certainly the two Slams on the most disparate surfaces (Roland Garros and Wimbledon) would be separated by more than two weeks. Also, you probably would not have players compete for five sets in extreme Australian heat immediately following a two-month off season. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of starting over so the tennis calendar needs to be assembled around the existing weeks of the Grand Slams, the crown jewels of the sport. As great as having a Masters Series event two weeks before the Australian Open would be, Tennis Australia has wrestled recently with moving it back as late as March and yet, in the end, has been reluctant to even move the Open back one week, with the issue of summer holidays a major consideration. In addition, with January being Shanghai's coldest month (average high/low 45 F/ 32 F), China would not be the answer even if some space were created to start the year.
The other perennial calendar debate is adding an extra week between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Again, while this would allow for a mandatory Masters Series event on grass (probably Queens, provided the historic facility could support it), most players are not keen to extend the grass court season as they view another week on the anachronistic surface as a waste of time.
As for Davis Cup every TWO years, most federations, especially those playing outside of the World Group (which are plenty), are unwilling to give up the revenue which a home tie provides. The real issue is the protracted schedule. Can even the most avid tennis fan, let alone the casual sports observer, maintain the enthusiasm generated by the US win over Spain last month until mid-September...5 months down the road? Hardly. And the point made by Moose Malloy that a country can win the Cup in December, only to very quickly turn around and lose it in February shortly after its celebration party has ended is definitely another shortcoming of the present format.
US Open:
Tie-Break in the Final Set: The tie-break has been a trademark of the US Open since it debuted there in 1970. Like Wimbledon's signature "predominately white" clothing rule, every Slam insists on its uniqueness...none of them are looking to mirror the other.
Super Saturday: A big hit with fans and television viewers since they were treated to a marathon day of tennis in 1984. It is a two-ticket day now, with the Women's final at night, so the men play in the afternoon - still not the optimum schedule for one of tennis' majors. Imagine if it rained on Thursday night for the last of the Men's four quarterfinal matches. One player would face the unenviable task of needing to win THREE best of five set matches in the final three days of a 14-day event. Players who reach the final weekend of the US Open don't like it, but since they all come back the following year, it is difficult to coerce the USTA to change. How about a Sunday Women's final and a Monday night Men's final? Believe me, Monday Night Football is not the formidable competition for US television viewers it once was.
Other Suggestions:
Eliminate The Let: A solid idea. Why is it OK to play the ball off the net during a point but not on a serve? Plus, its one less officiating call to make, thereby reducing potential controversy, not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as well where there is no officiating. Chances of it happening? Not great. The players still oppose it (I have mentioned in this column before how players resist change) although more are open minded to it than a decade ago. If the ITF would for once go out on a limb and take some initiative by changing the rule, the players would quickly adapt and adjust and the initial grumbling would dissipate in no time.
Wood Racket Tournament: Those of us who grew up keeping our rackets in a "press" would love to see this. Johnny Mac would be the first in line to enter. We just saw a fun special event on a hybrid court...how about another one?
Replacing Rebound Ace with Hard courts for the Australian Open: A suggestion taken quite seriously by Tennis Australia, to the point where they announced last month that Rebound Ace would be replaced in 2008 with a cushioned acrylic surface. However, they are quick to assert that while it will have "a lower rubber content and be firmer under foot" it is "not a hard court" in an apparent attempt to preserve the tournament's uniqueness from the other Slams (i.e. US Open). It will be interesting to see the players' reaction when they begin next season "down under".
Limit Medical Time Outs: Long overdue as already addressed in previous columns.
Unlimited Hawk-Eye Challenges: As Bottle Rocket points out, there is no limit on ball mark inspections on clay (it is in the hands of the chair umpire) so why is there a limit with this system? Out of challenges, Serena could have lost BEFORE this year's Australian Open final on a bad call, even though the technology was available.
Olympic Tennis: There are more different passports in the locker room than ever. This is in large part because of the introduction of tennis to the Summer Games two decades ago, through the unrelenting efforts of the late Philippe Chatrier. Once part of the Olympics, national tennis federations had a much better chance of governmental funding than they may have had otherwise. The players may look at it as just another big tournament, but those that participate all enjoy the Olympic experience.
Tennis Masters Cup for 10: Two groups of five players would add 8 additional round robin matches. More to the point, it would add more meaningless or irrelevant matches later in the week. Great for us tennis junkies but the sport marketing experts would argue it dilutes the product. Seems like the existing format has stood the test of time.
Reintroduce the Bonus Pool: This may be on its way back. Great for the players, but it may not be as effective as Moose Malloy would hope. When offered a few years ago, no amount of money could get the likes of Sampras, Agassi, even Rafter to play the required number of events...they left millions of dollars on the table. Yet, for a young Marat Safin, he admittedly played several top events visibly injured, cheating you the fan, just to qualify for his bonus.
Increased Prize Money in Challengers: Would be great, although even under the current criteria it is extremely difficult for the promoters of many of the over 150 challenger events worldwide to break even. It is a fine line between "keeping the pedal to the metal" on prize money minimums while continuing to encourage events to be held. Since the ultimate goal of any professional is to make it to the Tour level, it is essential to maintain as many opportunities to gain valuable ranking points as possible. Shorten the Entry Deadline for ATP Events: In what was a spirited and at times personal debate recently on Talk Tennis about Guillermo Canas being forced to qualify in Rome, it was suggested that the entry deadline for ATP tournaments be reduced from the current six weeks. I should remind the readers that this is not the first time that a player has a great week, raises his ranking considerably, yet misses tournaments where the entry lists have already been made. Happens a lot on all levels. The obvious reason for an entry deadline is to allow for both tournaments and players to get organized (there is tremendous interest generated on Tuesdays in player lounges and tournament offices when these "cut-offs" are released). Six weeks seems to have worked for over 25 years but if (and its a big IF) both parties could live with a shorter deadline, why not? Just keep in mind that the chance still exists that a player with very recent success could still miss out.
Defending Champion to Return the Following Year: Fans and tournament directors, especially of the smaller tour events, would love this rule to be implemented. No need to pay an appearance fee to a defending champ who is a top player or a player who then zooms up the rankings. However, for every Wayne Arthurs there are dozens of other players for whom this would be costly, not only financially but to the autonomy of their playing schedules as well. A player has 51 weeks to secure his spot in next year's event, using the ranking points he just earned as a springboard. As a last resort, there is always a wildcard if he was such a big hit in winning the event the previous year.
No Night Play and No Roof Closings at Outdoor Events: Those horses have already left the barn. Even Wrigley Field has lights! Tell me you didn't enjoy watching the memorable Connors and, more recently, Agassi matches at the US Open after getting home from work? As for turning an outdoor tournament into an indoor one when the rains hit...perhaps you've heard? Even Wimbledon, the bastion of tradition, is building a roof for Centre Court.
These are just some of the possible ideas for the future of the ATP Tour. If you think you've got what it takes to be an ATP Commissioner for a day or just have a comment you'd like to contribute to the possible evolution of the tour, please feel free to chime in.
