How I would change pro tennis

[Camilio Pascual]

It would prevent situations where serena is behind safina in the rankings, when safina hasn't won a slam.

Well...I've certainly come around to your way of thinking over the years. I realize that weeks at #1 really isn't respected or fully rewarded, I used to stick up for Hingis' #1 ranking when she didn't win any Majors.
I'm afraid your system would let Slam winners rest on their laurels and make it all about the Slams, which it is to most people. So, I reluctantly concede your system is more what people really want than the present one, I just think it is not good for tennis.
No system is perfect, I feel the defects in your system are that it could reward one surface wonders and be prone to fake long-term injury claims. If you could think of a way to deal with my first objection, I'd say your system is good. Almost any system is going to be the victim of fake injury claims.
The biggest challenge to any Slam rewarding system is going to come from the tennis program development of China and possibly India.

 

[Andyk028]

Having players put their name on the backs of their shirt is stupid, it makes each player less unique..but I want to see Davis Cup jerseys!! Actually I just want to buy an Espana Nadal jersey.

 

[nikdom]

I propose 3 tiers of rankings. Rank 1-32; 32-128 and 128- rest. Each Tier has a different set of mandatory events differing in number and rankings points.

Each Tier has a cutoff of rankings points. So the 32th ranked player has to have say, a 1000 points at least.

Tier I players have to play only certain 250, 500 and above mandatory events. That is, their tournament load throughout the year is lighter and skewed towards their performance at the bigger events. This is what the top guys want - more rest and less tournaments so they do better at the slams and Masters series.

Tier II players have to play more 250 level tournaments. They collect points by playing more tournaments.

Tier III have to slog it out the hard way.

The big difference is that once a player is in one of the tiers, they drop down into a lower tier or go up into a higher tier only 4 times a year. That way its not a continuous thing and rankings are "protected" within a short time span of 3 or so months.

How does this help? - well it effectively creates the separation that's really needed to address the different concerns of top players vs the rest. The lower ranked guys don't mind playing more tournaments to rack up points (and earn much needed cash). The higher ranked guys would rather concentrate on the bigger tournaments and have a lighter schedule. This way everyone gets to have what they want.

Of course at the slams, everyone in the top 128 have a chance to meet. (along with wildcards etc)

The tier system also rewards good performance and penalizes bad performance. So for example, if a rank 30 guy does not do well at the smaller load of higher point tournaments, (within a 2-3 month span), then they are pushed into Tier II at the end of that period and they have to play more tournies against lesser players to build their confidence and regain their ranking.

Similarly, someone who is rising in the ranks, once they are able to accumulate more than the cutoff for Tier I will get into Tier I at the end of a period and now have to play less tournaments but against quality guys at the more prestigious events.

Of course, this means fromt the POV of tournament organizers that the smaller events lose higher ranked players, but there is always appearance money. If Davydenko wants to play more events to accumulate cash, that's his choice. He cannot complain then that the season is too long.

 

[morten]

give 2 points for a volley winner

 

[rosenstar]

Well...I've certainly come around to your way of thinking over the years. I realize that weeks at #1 really isn't respected or fully rewarded, I used to stick up for Hingis' #1 ranking when she didn't win any Majors.
I'm afraid your system would let Slam winners rest on their laurels and make it all about the Slams, which it is to most people. So, I reluctantly concede your system is more what people really want than the present one, I just think it is not good for tennis.
No system is perfect, I feel the defects in your system are that it could reward one surface wonders and be prone to fake long-term injury claims. If you could think of a way to deal with my first objection, I'd say your system is good. Almost any system is going to be the victim of fake injury claims.
The biggest challenge to any Slam rewarding system is going to come from the tennis program development of China and possibly India.

That's one of the pluses of my idea, to put a big emphasis on slams, while cutting the schedule down. Ideally, I'd like equally long clay court, hard court, and grass court seasons, Davis cup as I explained it in the OP, and a point system that puts emphasis on slams.

Having different seasons would allow the governing body of tennis to develop surface-specific rankings, which I think would be very cool.

I propose 3 tiers of rankings. Rank 1-32; 32-128 and 128- rest. Each Tier has a different set of mandatory events differing in number and rankings points.

Each Tier has a cutoff of rankings points. So the 32th ranked player has to have say, a 1000 points at least.

Tier I players have to play only certain 250, 500 and above mandatory events. That is, their tournament load throughout the year is lighter and skewed towards their performance at the bigger events. This is what the top guys want - more rest and less tournaments so they do better at the slams and Masters series.

Tier II players have to play more 250 level tournaments. They collect points by playing more tournaments.

Tier III have to slog it out the hard way.

The big difference is that once a player is in one of the tiers, they drop down into a lower tier or go up into a higher tier only 4 times a year. That way its not a continuous thing and rankings are "protected" within a short time span of 3 or so months.

How does this help? - well it effectively creates the separation that's really needed to address the different concerns of top players vs the rest. The lower ranked guys don't mind playing more tournaments to rack up points (and earn much needed cash). The higher ranked guys would rather concentrate on the bigger tournaments and have a lighter schedule. This way everyone gets to have what they want.

Of course at the slams, everyone in the top 128 have a chance to meet. (along with wildcards etc)

The tier system also rewards good performance and penalizes bad performance. So for example, if a rank 30 guy does not do well at the smaller load of higher point tournaments, (within a 2-3 month span), then they are pushed into Tier II at the end of that period and they have to play more tournies against lesser players to build their confidence and regain their ranking.

Similarly, someone who is rising in the ranks, once they are able to accumulate more than the cutoff for Tier I will get into Tier I at the end of a period and now have to play less tournaments but against quality guys at the more prestigious events.

Of course, this means fromt the POV of tournament organizers that the smaller events lose higher ranked players, but there is always appearance money. If Davydenko wants to play more events to accumulate cash, that's his choice. He cannot complain then that the season is too long.

Interesting idea. Of course tournament directors wouldn't like that (unless you had separate draws in the same tournament).

I don't like how the only chance you have to play against a different tier is in the slams. This means less upsets.

I really think the best solution is to only include a limited amount of tournaments in the rankings (yes, 8 might be too few, but you get the idea), and require so many matches on difference surfaces.

There are so many possibilities, I really think Tennis needs a single governing body to help find a mutual agreement between players, fans and tournament organizers that can be applied equally at all levels of the game.

 

[Changmaster]

Another reason to banish the let on the serve. Just in this Australian Open, I've seen many times where a serve was hit, and neither player noticed a let. Of course as a viewer I didn't hear or see a let either, and yet the very sensitive machine they use to call lets detected a let. For a specific example, during the Roddick-Lopez match, Roddick hit what looked like an ace, Lopez started walking to the other side, and yet a let was called. This sort of thing shouldn't happen, which is why all serves that hit the net and land in the service box should be played.

 

[ubermeyer]

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could [a]ffect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

Okay, except I think that if it is an emergency - such as family issue, etc. there should be no penalty, and it should be only 10 tournaments go towards your standing (8 is too low)

And I disagree with the let idea.

I also think Slam wins should be 2500 points instead of 2000.
that's all

 

[Shaolin]

Enfornce the time between points - there is no need to towl off on each point, examine 3 balls before each serve, pick your arse or bounce the ball 25 times before serving.

Ban unreasonable screaming/shrieking/grunting - point penaties if you do

Pay wta less

Agreed on all above.

Also agree on banishing service let.

 

[Shaolin]

give 2 points for a volley winner

Probably still wouldnt get wta players to the net

 

[canuckfan]

I'd like to have some basic study done to record the average number of let serves that occur in a given match. THen an estimate of how much extra time this adds to a given match. It seems to me that the time lost would not be significant. Maybe 5-10 minutes a match at most. Hardly seems like it's worth incorporating the lucky let serve. Serving is different than regular play because the change in ball speed can be so much greater on serve than on other strokes.

 

[LPShanet]

I'd like to have some basic study done to record the average number of let serves that occur in a given match. THen an estimate of how much extra time this adds to a given match. It seems to me that the time lost would not be significant. Maybe 5-10 minutes a match at most. Hardly seems like it's worth incorporating the lucky let serve. Serving is different than regular play because the change in ball speed can be so much greater on serve than on other strokes.

Funny that you mention that. They've actually done that research and concluded exactly what you guessed. The amount of time saved would be very minor. Much less, for example, than if they simply properly enforced the various time rules.

 

[rosenstar]

I'd like to have some basic study done to record the average number of let serves that occur in a given match. THen an estimate of how much extra time this adds to a given match. It seems to me that the time lost would not be significant. Maybe 5-10 minutes a match at most. Hardly seems like it's worth incorporating the lucky let serve. Serving is different than regular play because the change in ball speed can be so much greater on serve than on other strokes.

The problem isn't so much the amount of time, but the flow of the match if you will. It's just annoying to watch, and in my opinion, a useless rule.

Lets say we do count the time saved: In a Grand Slam, where 5-10 matches are played on a given court on a given day, 25-100 minutes a day could be saved. How happy would players be if they could finish their night matches ended 45 minutes earlier? They would love that. 25-100 extra minutes on every court could be quite beneficial to Wimbledon after a rain delay.

Pros of eliminating the let rule:
-more viewer friendly
-players prefer it
-eliminates time
-Lesser possibility of incorrect call

Cons:
-Possibility of undeserved winner at crucial point in match

The Pros clearly out-weigh the cons. Everyone I know who has actually played and watched this format prefers it.

 

[NamRanger]

The reason why there are lets played in college tennis is because most matches are unofficiated, and because of that, players can call extremely bogus let calls on close serves just because they can.



Pros don't have to deal with it because they DO have officiating EVERY match, and therefore shouldn't have to deal with it.

 

[ttwarrior1]

disagree with every post

 

[Changmaster]

The reason why there are lets played in college tennis is because most matches are unofficiated, and because of that, players can call extremely bogus let calls on close serves just because they can.



Pros don't have to deal with it because they DO have officiating EVERY match, and therefore shouldn't have to deal with it.

Even in pro matches, there are times when a let call is still, "an eyebrow raiser," even though it's a machine that's calling the let. It's silly that a serve should be replayed because, even though NO ONE on court heard a let, an extra-sensitive machine detected one even though the ball barely grazing the net didn't even affect the path of the serve.

And like rosenstar said, I don't know of anyone who has actually played without lets on the serve (aka D1 tennis players) who have complained about it or don't like it.

 

[OrangePower]

On service lets:

I don't think it's a big deal either way, but my vote would to play service lets. For the reasons many have pointed out - more consistent, time saving, eliminate chance of bad call, etc. Ok, so you could win a point on matchpoint with a lucky service let. But you could just as easily win on a lucky net cord during the rally. No difference.

Other thing I like about it is that if the pro's adopt it, then it will sooner rather than later become the rule for USTA as well. It definitely makes sense for unofficiated USTA league play, for the same reason as it makes sense and was adopted for D1 play.

On top 8 tournaments count to ranking:

I agree this would lead to more accurate ratings, and would also work to shorten the season for the top players, since they would have enough good results even when playing a smaller number of total tournaments. And they don't need the added $$$ from playing more tournaments.

But on the other hand it still puts pressure on mid-level players to play as many tournaments as possible, in the hope that they swap out a poor result that currently counts in their top 8 with a better one. And they need the extra prizemoney also.

So I think this will lead to top players playing fewer tournaments than now, while mid-level players are still playing as much or more. So fields will get weaker at some of the less-prestigious events.

Also, there is a business decision to be made - the ATP wants to get the top-players into as many tournaments as possible, for the exposure, corporate sponsorships, etc.

So yes this would lead to more accurate rankings, but the side effects and business impact I think make this impractical in reality.

 

[DrpShot!]

Best ideas are Davis Cup every 2 years and one governing body. I

i'd like to see the 30 sec between points enforced too though, the constant toweling off is incredibly annoying.

 

[Serendipitous]

I would let players serve from the service line instead of the baseline.

 

[rosenstar]

I added more points to the Original Post, Check it out.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Funny that you mention that. They've actually done that research and concluded exactly what you guessed. The amount of time saved would be very minor. Much less, for example, than if they simply properly enforced the various time rules.

Thank you. The pro let players were trying to play both sides: doesn't happen much, but would speed up play. Their Logic - Fail!

Even in pro matches, there are times when a let call is still, "an eyebrow raiser," even though it's a machine that's calling the let.

And they quickly move on and get over it.

Names on the backs - cheesy Team Tennis thing. No thanks. Since the players' faces are recognizable it's unnecessary. TV could occasionally show who is at which end - problem more easily solved.

Davis Cup idea is good - or just eliminate it - useless. We have tennis in the Olympics - works for me.

Moving the AO later would be good - but Australia isn't going to do it because they want to make $$$ and feel with kids back in school in Feb they would lose money. Not sure I agree - but they're not going to budge. Moving the USO - worst idea ever.

The 'only 8 best results count' - would ruin tennis. The top names would be very picky. Maybe the OP doesn't know - the # of Masters Series 1000 + majors > 8. And the tournament directors of other lead-in tournaments would like to have a shot at attracting top names for marketing reasons. OP's 'solution' would make a lot of tournaments look like D1 events - friends and family in the stand.

I'm just amazed that people think tennis (mens at least) needs such an overhaul. If you think you're going to attract new fans, you're mistaken. What the ATP needs to do - and I get sick of saying this - is go with the NASCAR approach - be more fan friendly! Get the players to do more interviews - Jim Rome is the sports radio king - other than PMac and Blake - I can't remember any tennis people being on his show. ESPN does many of the Masters 1000 events - get the players on ESPN News and the morning shows - and not just the US players. And finally - more autograph and picture sessions with fans that show up at events. Getting better in the last few yrs at this - but a long way to go. Some players still act like you're asking for a blood transfusion...

 

[rosenstar]

Thank you. The pro let players were trying to play both sides: doesn't happen much, but would speed up play. Their Logic - Fail!

And they quickly move on and get over it.

I'm assuming your against the let rule I suggested, have you ever watched a match where they played lets?

Names on the backs - cheesy Team Tennis thing. No thanks. Since the players' faces are recognizable it's unnecessary. TV could occasionally show who is at which end - problem more easily solved.

The idea is to attract more casual fans. A casual fan knows Roddick, Federer and Nadal, maybe a few other big names. Do you really think a casual fan knows who Nikolay Davydenko? No. I don't understand why anyone would be put off by this, it creates marketing opportunities for clothing companies and tournaments while making it easier and more fun for the casual fan to watch tennis, what's the problem?

Davis Cup idea is good - or just eliminate it - useless. We have tennis in the Olympics - works for me.

Olympic tennis is a joke. Davis Cup has a rich history. IMHO no sport where the athlete cares more about their sport's league than the Olympic competition should be part of the Olympics.

Moving the AO later would be good - but Australia isn't going to do it because they want to make $$$ and feel with kids back in school in Feb they would lose money. Not sure I agree - but they're not going to budge. Moving the USO - worst idea ever.

pretty much agree, moving the AO would be ideal, but not likely.

The 'only 8 best results count' - would ruin tennis. The top names would be very picky. Maybe the OP doesn't know - the # of Masters Series 1000 + majors > 8.

I am aware that there currently are more than 8 majors and masters. I would like to cut out Master series. Read the previous post where I've agreed that 8 tournaments is too few. I do think that we need to cut down the amount of tournaments though.

I'm just amazed that people think tennis (mens at least) needs such an overhaul. If you think you're going to attract new fans, you're mistaken. What the ATP needs to do - and I get sick of saying this - is go with the NASCAR approach - be more fan friendly! Get the players to do more interviews - Jim Rome is the sports radio king - other than PMac and Blake - I can't remember any tennis people being on his show. ESPN does many of the Masters 1000 events - get the players on ESPN News and the morning shows - and not just the US players. And finally - more autograph and picture sessions with fans that show up at events. Getting better in the last few yrs at this - but a long way to go. Some players still act like you're asking for a blood transfusion...

The game is more physical than ever before, players can't handle the schedule. The schedule needs to be changed, and the sport needs to made more television friendly (that includes the interviewing that you mentioned)