Italian Open organizer eyes tournament as 5th tennis Grand Slam
- Thread starter Lozo1016
- Start date
Drob
Hall of Fame
You are entirely correct, and thanks. I should have said ATP can give an undefeated ATP Finals Champion 2,000 points, equal to a Slam, and $ equal or greater than Wimbledon. It would be hard then not to consider the event a "Slam". Just imagining, like many of the rest of the posts here. Nor was my idea that great. Because, while the players seem like babies these days about the schedule being too heavy, they play fewer than three-quarters the number of matches of players at the beginning of the century and two-thirds of players in the later 20th Century. There is room to expand the tournament structure, but it would meet resistance.
What is needed for variety and internationalization is a significant grass court event, indoor fast-court event (possibly carpet, which might be easier on player's bodies (not sure), some greater prestige for Chinese tennis, a BIG event in what used to be called The Third World. And the Saudi thing in some form is inevitable, and has the possibility of expanding tennis geographically. And i do stick w view that IW has earned some special upgrade in status based on sheer excellence all-round, and the Internazionali also merits a boost, not just because a great tournament, but on historical considerations. In post-War amateur tennis, the Italian was virtually a Slam, and was generally more coveted than the Australian.
I would hate to see MC dropped from top ranks. It is the oldest tournament after Wimbledon, I believe. It was a BIG tournament since the 1890s. But it seems pretty small right now. In its place you could put the new grass-court tournament. This would definitely give the game more variety, and more opportunity for daredevil-type players, to fan's delight I think. It would also make all top players better on grass and this would lead to more competitive Wimbledons. You can accomplish GRASS and "THIRD WORLD" in one move. If China commits to improving its product, you can award it with an increase to a "1500" along w IW and Rome. The Saudi indoor tournament would mean only a net increase of one BIG tournament to the calendar. There is room for one more big tournament. ATP Finals can be left alone, except moved to Germany.
New Slam - No
ATP Finals - Increase points and money or leave at current status.
1500s - IW, Rome, China, Saudi Indoor (10-day events; 5-set SF and F)
1000s - Miami, Madrid, Rogers Cup, Cincinnati, Paris, Grass-Court tournament in South Africa or India, or somewhere (back to one week)
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
I also tend to agree w this and @Sudacafan's jocular disdain of a 5th Slam. There has been only one "attempt" at achieving this - by Butch Buchholz at Key Biscayne in its early years and the early years of this century. He made a tremendous tournament but 5th Slam was never close.
I also think that the Olympics is gradually emerging as a Slam equivalent, albeit once every four years.
roysid
Legend
When they have money, they makethe noise
DSH
Bionic Poster
FlatShot_V
Semi-Pro
lol no.
Monte Carlo is.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
The Monte Carlo courts must be among the most expensive in the world in terms of land value per square meter.
FlatShot_V
Semi-Pro
I don`t know about that, since the club and courts themselves are in France.
GoatNo1
Legend
MC is the only no mandatory masters, so least importante by definition.
I AGREE, we do not need another slam. Having another slam would further diminish other tournaments as top players would play less important tournaments, in order to be in top form for the slams.
Top players also skip other masters, for honest and dishonest excuses. The top clay court players, and most others, compete in MC.
GoatNo1
Legend
still the only non mandatory master
that absolutely disqualify it from to be the most prestigious masters!
FlatShot_V
Semi-Pro
That means absolutely nothing. Venue is top notch, prestige of the event is top notch, and the players and matches that attend are also some of the best in the calendar.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
If they were in Monaco, could you comment?
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
We do not need another outdoor HC slam. We could do with an indoor HC or clay slam, but the indoor season isnt particularly exhilarating. Removin perhaps Paris or Shanghai (Or even Cincy) would make for a functional Rome GS before RG.
TRUE, though I did not say the MC was the most prestigious masters but equal to most others. Probably the most prestigious are: IW, Miami, and Rome though all award the same number of ranking points
In what way?
GoatNo1
Legend
my message that you react to was the answer to someone who wrote that MC was most prestigious master!
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
When Djoko became ATP Player Council President, he dethroned Chris Kermode and his team and replaced him with Gaudenzi. Moved the ATP Finals to Turin from London. Not very popular with the players at the time.
Since then, the Italian tennis establishment have had a huge role in the functioning of the ATP and they give Djoko a lot more influence than he had when the Brits were running things.
So all these new ideas, like two-round byes at Masters and a 5th Slam in Rome, all coming out of Italian mouths and all happen to favor Djoko. One reason he had the Finals moved was because he owns property near Turin and can easily prepare for the WTF tournament in the comfort of home.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Perfection was achieved in the 90's, with Super 9s having best-of-5 finals (but lasting only one week), which gave them a Slam "feel", Slams doing their own thing and the Masters at the end of the year as a culmination of the indoor season - a fifth Slam of sorts, as it was the biggest tournament on a specific surface, but different enough to be considered something else altogether, with only the elite top 8 playing and the group/pool system. It made sense, now it's becoming a complete mess.
And if they want to add a fifth Slam, I'm not sure how you can do that when there's already very few weeks between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon, and you can't really move those two around too much because of weather and surface conditions (especially the latter, considering how fragile grass is). Five Slams would mean at least one Slam every two months, which is extremely tight and it would trivialise the events themselves. Four is already a lot, not many sports have four top events of the same importance in the same year. If anything, it would make sense if there were only three majors (Roland-Garros, Wimbledon, US Open), each on a different surface.
And if they want to add a fifth Slam, I'm not sure how you can do that when there's already very few weeks between Roland-Garros and Wimbledon, and you can't really move those two around too much because of weather and surface conditions (especially the latter, considering how fragile grass is). Five Slams would mean at least one Slam every two months, which is extremely tight and it would trivialise the events themselves. Four is already a lot, not many sports have four top events of the same importance in the same year. If anything, it would make sense if there were only three majors (Roland-Garros, Wimbledon, US Open), each on a different surface.
Last edited:
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I must say quite like the idea of creating a 1500 category between Masters 1000s and Slams, it would solve a few current problems.
But I would give one of those to the Czechs. They're one of the greatest nations in this sport's history and have hardly anything to show for it when it comes to tournaments. I find this hugely disrespectful.
I would also give the ATP Finals a permanent home in Germany, the tournament always felt better organised and better attended when it was in Frankfurt and Hanover. German crowds are hugely respectful of other nationalities and always tend to applaud both sides, even when a German is playing (e.g. Becker-Sampras at Hanover). This would mitigate the tendency, embodied by Italians these days, to make that tournament a patriotic rally.
Also, I wouldn't mind tampering with the ATP Finals format, as it doesn't affect legacy or tradition too much (not as much as introducing a new Slam). For instance, it never made much sense to me to include only the top 8 in the Year-End Championship. Why not make it the top 10? It's a round number, it's highly symbolic in tennis (people want to reach the top 10, not the "top 8"), and you can still create two groups of 5.
Last edited:
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
It’s not about respect, it’s about capabilities.
I’m sorry to say this, but most of Eastern Europe lacks the infrastructure and the human expertise to pull one of these events off.
Czechia isn’t Russia or Belarus, sure, but there’s levels below that that are still problematic.
For example this year’s “Athens” tournament moving from Serbia bc Djokovic angered the Serbian government. The ATP wouldn’t stand for that if it were a Masters or Slam. If you’ve been around people who operate at the highest levels of their fields, you know you only get one chance to **** things up. After that you’ll never get another opportunity.
darthrafa
Hall of Fame
even wtf is not attractive to exhausted players
how to fit in the so-called the 5th slam?
ok u can give more money and points to the winner of any tournament but it does not mean it is more meaningful to tennis lovers
well, it might be very important to those record-counters
how to fit in the so-called the 5th slam?
ok u can give more money and points to the winner of any tournament but it does not mean it is more meaningful to tennis lovers
well, it might be very important to those record-counters
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
All parts of the world except the first world lack all things necessary.
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
There are some Asian countries that could maybe do it, but even then…
Having a snazzy airport and a breathtaking skyline isn’t the only requirement
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
London?
Follow the money!
Eight is about the maximum field size that enables the traditional round robin format to be comfortably employed.
4 choose 2 = 6
6 * 2 = 12
12 + SF & F = 15 matches
This fits pretty well into a week. Two matches per day for seven days, then the final by itself on the eighth day.
5 choose 2 = 10
10 * 2 = 20
20 + SF & F = 23 matches
Even an ungainly schedule of three matches per day wouldn't be enough to get the job done without lengthening the tournament. And don't forget that they still have to schedule the doubles. If the size of that field also increased to 10, the scheduling problem would be much worse.
The 1984 YEC had a field of 12. But it utilized a single-elimination format with a bunch of byes. Only 11 matches needed to be played -- fewer than with an eight-player RR draw. The 1985 YEC had a 16-player draw with no byes. That yielded 15 matches.
The single-elimination events were missing the distinctive RR "war of all against all" that is the hallmark of the YEC. And they didn't provide any extra tennis. No wonder the event switched back.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
You're right, of course, but it's a sad state of affairs if you let every aspect of tennis be determined by money and very stringent rules that exclude more than half the planet.
It's one of the (many) reasons why the Davis Cup is crap now. I would much rather have the old home and away format, with players going to India, etc., than whatever this thing is now, with a "final eight". But of course, Spain and Italy have all the capabilities. Is the product better though? Not really.
BlueB
Legend
China, Russia or South America.
RSJfan
Legend
Can’t we support it just to make Raul happy? It can’t happen anyway because the Slams have developed organically outside of the ATP/WTA and you can’t simply magically decree history and prestige by awarding points and/or money but Raul doesn’t understand this and it would make him happy if posters supported his idea.
Either China or Russia will delight Raul — notwithstanding his current fetish with Binaghi, Xi and Vlad are his two favs —but why have you lumped all S. American countries together. For example, why would Bolivia want it’s thieving neighbors to host the 5th slam instead of itself?
Last edited:
