Plamen1234
Hall of Fame
Article from Tennis Magazine about this topic.I agree with them - imo there should be at least one grass court Master tournament.
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/06/its-time-grass-court-masters-tournament/74847/
"ATP Masters 1000 tournaments are loaded with talent and loved by fans. There are three held on clay between April and May, and there are six on hard courts: two in the U.S. in the spring, another two in North America in the summer, and two more in the fall, in China and France.
There is something missing from this annual circuit of top-flight tennis: grass. The old surface and the stage for the most prestigious Grand Slam tournament is so cherished that the ATP, WTA and the leaders of Grand Slams decided to extend the lead-in to Wimbledon to three weeks after the French Open, rather than two. The move has been lauded by players, many of whom now play two grass events before Wimbledon. Last year, Roger Federer, who didn’t play on clay, showed how ideal this setup can be. In his first grass tournament, in Stuttgart, he lost his first match. But he went on to win the Halle grass event, and then won Wimbledon without losing a set.
With all that the grass-court swing offers, it deserves a Masters event. The grass “season” is the shortest among the surfaces, and players proficient on turf should be given more opportunity to gather prize money, ranking points and prestige. A Masters event would narrow the wide margin of top-tier tournaments offered on grass and clay, and give fans more reason to stay tuned in to the tours between Roland Garros and Wimbledon.
This isn’t as simple as bumping an existing grass tournament to the Masters level, particularly when the two biggest events—Queen’s Club and Halle—take place in the same week. If one of those became a Masters event, the other would suffer. My solution: make both of them Masters events, and require eligible players to compete in one of them. The tournaments would need to expand their footprints, which would take some time, but it would be worth it: the events could sell more tickets, and the starpower and depth of their fields would attract more fans on site and on television
What would be even better is if these two events included ATP and WTA draws, like the Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome and Cincinnati tournaments. This would hurt some existing tournaments, but women should be able to earn as much money and exposure as men. (An alternative: the current WTA Premier-level grass tournament in Birmingham could become a Premier Mandatory event.)
Tennis has been growing, but there’s still room for additional expansion in terms of ranking points and prize money—which creates stronger fields and attracts more fans. There is an opportunity to do this on grass, an overlooked yet traditional surface. Such an investment would benefit the tours and players, and make this classic surface thrive in a modern era"
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/06/its-time-grass-court-masters-tournament/74847/
"ATP Masters 1000 tournaments are loaded with talent and loved by fans. There are three held on clay between April and May, and there are six on hard courts: two in the U.S. in the spring, another two in North America in the summer, and two more in the fall, in China and France.
There is something missing from this annual circuit of top-flight tennis: grass. The old surface and the stage for the most prestigious Grand Slam tournament is so cherished that the ATP, WTA and the leaders of Grand Slams decided to extend the lead-in to Wimbledon to three weeks after the French Open, rather than two. The move has been lauded by players, many of whom now play two grass events before Wimbledon. Last year, Roger Federer, who didn’t play on clay, showed how ideal this setup can be. In his first grass tournament, in Stuttgart, he lost his first match. But he went on to win the Halle grass event, and then won Wimbledon without losing a set.
With all that the grass-court swing offers, it deserves a Masters event. The grass “season” is the shortest among the surfaces, and players proficient on turf should be given more opportunity to gather prize money, ranking points and prestige. A Masters event would narrow the wide margin of top-tier tournaments offered on grass and clay, and give fans more reason to stay tuned in to the tours between Roland Garros and Wimbledon.
This isn’t as simple as bumping an existing grass tournament to the Masters level, particularly when the two biggest events—Queen’s Club and Halle—take place in the same week. If one of those became a Masters event, the other would suffer. My solution: make both of them Masters events, and require eligible players to compete in one of them. The tournaments would need to expand their footprints, which would take some time, but it would be worth it: the events could sell more tickets, and the starpower and depth of their fields would attract more fans on site and on television
What would be even better is if these two events included ATP and WTA draws, like the Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome and Cincinnati tournaments. This would hurt some existing tournaments, but women should be able to earn as much money and exposure as men. (An alternative: the current WTA Premier-level grass tournament in Birmingham could become a Premier Mandatory event.)
Tennis has been growing, but there’s still room for additional expansion in terms of ranking points and prize money—which creates stronger fields and attracts more fans. There is an opportunity to do this on grass, an overlooked yet traditional surface. Such an investment would benefit the tours and players, and make this classic surface thrive in a modern era"
