Should Grass be awarded a 1000/500?

What Should Be Done About the Grass Swing

  • Add more grass tournaments

    Votes: 37 57.8%
  • Upgrade the existing ones to either 500's or 1000's

    Votes: 24 37.5%
  • I don't really care for grass

    Votes: 3 4.7%

  • Total voters
    64
Grass has Wimbledon, arguably the biggest tennis tournament in the world, but apart from that, there are only 5 other grass-court competitions (Queens, Eastbourne, Halle, Unicef and Campbells HOF) all of which are 250's and most of which running parallel to each other , making the maximum amount of points winnable in a grass swing 2,750.

Now I am not going to do all of the maths for Clay and Hard courts but off the top of my head:
Hard: Aussie Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Rogers, Cincinnati, Bercy, US Open and Shanghai = 10,000 ATP ranking points
Clay = RG, Madrid, Rome and Monte Carlo = 5,000 ATP ranking points.

Remember this is only considering the 1000's + Slams, there are obviously numerous 250's and a few 500's on Hard and Clay courts.

There has been talk about upgrading Halle to a 500, however I don't know if this is anything more solid than rumors.

Ultimately, my question to you is:
Do you think that the grass swing should be given a bit more priority?
 

zcarzach

Semi-Pro
Yes, I do. The other surfaces, especially hard courts, carry too much weight. I don't particularly like clay court tennis, but I respect it as an important surface. Grass should get the same respect.
 

jwjh

Legend
Yes, there should be at least a grass Masters 1000 or two to even things out a bit. But it probably isn't going to happen I think.:(
 

Homeboy Hotel

Hall of Fame
Bump Queens up to 500, easily space to add many more courts there.

Not sure if a 1000 would work, and if, where would it go - both in terms of location and schedule?
 
Seconded, or thirded, way too many clay tournaments, not enough grass tournaments. But there needs to be some consensus on the type of grass blend, because if all of the smaller grass tournaments follow Wimby's example and use a slower, higher bouncing grass mixture, then it's definitely not worth it. Bring back fast grass!
 

jokinla

Hall of Fame
I've said several times they should have a Masters 1000 on grass, but then it would kill the other grass tourneys, at least for the top guys.
 

Rusty669

Semi-Pro
I believe there are far too many hardcourt tournaments. Why should there be a disproportionate amount of hardcourt tournaments in a year, when everybody keeps saying each type should be represented evenly.
The grass season is far too short, it's a joke really...
 

Hood_Man

G.O.A.T.
I'd like a few more grass tournaments, but then again it's the sparse number of them that makes the short lived grass season extra special.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
a 500 on grass would be nice, but having a 500 among queens and halle while the other is only a 250 doesn't sound good.

that's one of the problems with the new ranking system (the one used since 2009): the lack of flexibility in the attribution of points (compared to the previous system) for the tournaments (below the "masters 1000" category).

pts for the winner : before (doubled for matching the new rankings) / now
regular tournaments : 350, 400, 450, 500 or 600 / 250 or 500 (less flexibility)
icon13.gif

masters-series : 1000 / 1000 (no change)
GS : 2000 / 2000 (no change)
(Nb: red = previous system and green = new one; only considering the points awarded to the winners of the tournament)

i guess they supposely did that (only 2 categories: 250 and 500) to make it more simple for the average tennis fan, but still...
 
Add one more grass 250 tournament. Make Halle and Queens 500 or even one of them 1000. Yes.

I like this idea the most. Should be a 250/500/1000 tourney progression going into Wimby. Maybe with the 1000 being a combined event, and a week off for another 250 for the lower tier players to play leading into Wimby.
 
Last edited:

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
There needs to be schedule changes to accomodate a grass Masters 1000 event, which I am heavily in favor of.

The break between Wimbledon and Toronto/Montreal is one of the biggest breaks in the calendar, and is probably the biggest for a lot of players. I would think that would need to be cut down as, I'm sure, making a grass Masters 1000 event could not take place concurrently with any 250 or 500 events and there must be at least a one week break between it and Wimbledon. So, after Roland Garros, we could have a one week break, followed by two grass-court 250s/500, followed by a grass Masters event, another one-week break, followed by Wimbledon.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Grass needs more important tournaments for sure. Wimbledon is cherished as the ultimate prize in tennis. Yet.....it's played on a surface that is completely irrelevant outside of the tournament itself. That's pretty ironic if you ask me. There should at least be two 500 events before Wimbledon, and maybe even a 1000 afterward or before.

An aside: China doesn't deserve a masters. They may excel in many other individual sports, diving, gymnastics, table tennis, etc., but to have one of the biggest cities in the world have about 12 tennis fans is pretty bad.
 
Last edited:

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
The idea sounds great and I support it, but where in the schedule would it fit? You can't have a 1000 tournament the week after a major. Even if it was moved back a week, would the grass season consist of a masters and a major and that's it? What would that do with smaller grass tournaments like Halle or 's-Hertogenbosch if there was a mandatory event simultaneously?

I don't think it'll happen because it's not necessary or practical, but it would be nice.
 

Raz11

Professional
I'm pretty sure wimbledon and the french can't be rescheduled so we are stuck with 2 weeks. Can't have a masters before or after a slam so a masters is out of the question. They could upgrade halle and queens but that would require a significant increase in the prize money which im not sure they do.
 
The idea sounds great and I support it, but where in the schedule would it fit?

The entire schedule would have to be overhauled.

Currently, there are 4 Grand Slams (duh), 9 Masters 1000, 11 500s, and 40 (!) 250s. There are no 500s or 1000s played before the Australian Open, but February has 4 500 events. The months of February and April of this year are insane. There isn't a week in Feb. where there aren't 3 simultaneous tournaments happening at the same time. Can anyone explain that to me?

You can't have a 1000 tournament the week after a major

The first Masters events of the year are of course the IW/Miami double in March. But it's obvious from the 2012 schedule that having a Masters right before a Slam was not a problem, otherwise there wouldn't be a Masters 2 weeks before RG and USO. There's also the BNP Paribas Masters the week before the year-end championships. So why not after? Not directly after, but a week after.

My suggestions are to make the season exactly 9 months long (Feb 1st-October 31st) leaving a 3-month offseason. Increase the number of Masters 1000 tournaments to 10, including one grass-court masters. And for Pete's sake (even though he doesn't play anymore, buhdumching), reduce the number of 250s. Or at the very least, schedule them slightly more rigorously. For example:

February 1st to March 31st = Winter hardcourt season, 2mo, AO moved to February, IW and Miami still March
April 1st to May 31st = clay season, 2mo, ends in RG
June 1st to mid July = grass season, 1.5mo, ends in Wimbledon
Mid July to mid September = Summer hardcourt, 2mo, ends in USO
Mid September to October 31st = Fall hardcourt/indoor season, 1.5mo, ends in year-end finals

That way, there's always approx. 2mo between slams, and the entire tennis season is more deliniated.

The only fly in the ointment is Olympics and Davis cup. Those are very tough to schedule around.
 
Last edited:

Raz11

Professional
The entire schedule would have to be overhauled.

Currently, there are 4 Grand Slams (duh), 9 Masters 1000, 11 500s, and 40 (!) 250s. There are no 500s or 1000s played before the Australian Open, but February has 4 500 events. The months of February and April of this year are insane. There isn't a week in Feb. where there aren't 3 simultaneous tournaments happening at the same time. Can anyone explain that to me?



The first Masters events of the year are of course the IW/Miami double in March. But it's obvious from the 2012 schedule that having a Masters right before a Slam was not a problem, otherwise there wouldn't be a Masters 2 weeks before RG and USO. There's also the BNP Paribas Masters the week before the year-end championships. So why not after? Not directly after, but a week after.

My suggestions are to make the season exactly 9 months long (Feb 1st-October 31st) leaving a 3-month offseason. Increase the number of Masters 1000 tournaments to 10, including one grass-court masters. And for Pete's sake (even though he doesn't play anymore, buhdumching), reduce the number of 250s. Or at the very least, schedule them slightly more rigorously. For example:

February 1st to March 31st = Winter hardcourt season, 2mo, AO moved to February, IW and Miami still March
April 1st to May 31st = clay season, 2mo, ends in RG
June 1st to mid July = grass season, 1.5mo, ends in Wimbledon
Mid July to mid September = Summer hardcourt, 2mo, ends in USO
Mid September to October 31st = Fall hardcourt/indoor season, 1.5mo, ends in year-end finals

That way, there's always approx. 2mo between slams, and the entire tennis season is more deliniated.

The only fly in the ointment is Olympics and Davis cup. Those are very tough to schedule around.

The problem is that the GS dates are fixed and ATP has no control over them. I can't say much for the other three slams but AO is played on the last week of the school holidays. Tennis Australia wouldn't risk reducing their attendance just by moving it later after the holidays.

Also the 250 is just as important as the GS. They provide the income for all the lower players. Without them, tennis as a sport may not even last in the long-run. If it was up to me, I would extend the season and just add more 250s. Not like the top players would attend them anyway.

The schedule may not be perfect but it is fine the way it is.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
The entire schedule would have to be overhauled.

Currently, there are 4 Grand Slams (duh), 9 Masters 1000, 11 500s, and 40 (!) 250s. There are no 500s or 1000s played before the Australian Open, but February has 4 500 events. The months of February and April of this year are insane. There isn't a week in Feb. where there aren't 3 simultaneous tournaments happening at the same time. Can anyone explain that to me?



The first Masters events of the year are of course the IW/Miami double in March. But it's obvious from the 2012 schedule that having a Masters right before a Slam was not a problem, otherwise there wouldn't be a Masters 2 weeks before RG and USO. There's also the BNP Paribas Masters the week before the year-end championships. So why not after? Not directly after, but a week after.

My suggestions are to make the season exactly 9 months long (Feb 1st-October 31st) leaving a 3-month offseason. Increase the number of Masters 1000 tournaments to 10, including one grass-court masters. And for Pete's sake (even though he doesn't play anymore, buhdumching), reduce the number of 250s. Or at the very least, schedule them slightly more rigorously. For example:

February 1st to March 31st = Winter hardcourt season, 2mo, AO moved to February, IW and Miami still March
April 1st to May 31st = clay season, 2mo, ends in RG
June 1st to mid July = grass season, 1.5mo, ends in Wimbledon
Mid July to mid September = Summer hardcourt, 2mo, ends in USO
Mid September to October 31st = Fall hardcourt/indoor season, 1.5mo, ends in year-end finals

That way, there's always approx. 2mo between slams, and the entire tennis season is more deliniated.

The only fly in the ointment is Olympics and Davis cup. Those are very tough to schedule around.

I like what you proposed, but a condensed schedule like that would leave the players exhausted. Like I said in an earlier post, I believe the break between the AO and Indian Wells and Wimbledon and Toronto/Montreal to be incredibly crucial in giving much needed rest to these players. Olympics, although normally played at the same time each iteration, will be played in the Southern Hemisphere in 2016, making it in the winter for us Northern Hemisphere residents. Also, the slams and Davis Cup are ITF regulated, not ATP, so they'd need to gain permission from the ITF to do any kind of schedule changes. The slams also have their own individual needs and interests to take into consideration before any significant changes take place.
 
^ and ^^, I gotcha, I was just spitballin, but I appreciate the clarification.

That's really a bummer about the slams being "locked in", that doesn't leave the ATP a lot of wiggle room to schedule 60 other tournaments.

It just has never made any sense to me why there are clay tournaments before IW and Miami, grass tournaments after Wimbledon, etc. The changing of the surfaces forms the "seasons" of tennis, so to have them placed seemingly randomly makes no sense to me.

I'm not totally against 250s. I think you could eliminate a few of them just by increasing the minimum draw size to 32 instead of 28. That would cut down 5 250s but still have the same number of players playing tennis. Also, IMO no Masters 1000 should have a draw under 64. IW and Miami look like mini-slams by comparison.

Overall, I think shortening the season is favorable, as is eliminating or at the very least moving some extraneous or poorly-scheduled tournaments to where they respectively belong. Spread the masters series out a little bit, 9 month schedule with 10 masters, 2 in march, that leaves roughly one per month. The schedule as is, there isn't a week that doesn't have tennis. To shorten the schedule means some tournaments just have to go, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

DolgoSantoro

Professional
A big part of what makes grass so special is how short the season is, but still if they were to create a fast grass masters 1000 title I wouldn't complain
 

Crisstti

Legend
Definitely at least a masters. I know many wouldn't like it, but hc is clearly over represented, so one of those should be changed to grass.
 

Lsmkenpo

Hall of Fame
The main problem with adding a grass Masters 1000 is venue, the ATP has guidelines that must be met by a tournament in regards to attendance and seating to be considered Masters 1000.

The venues stadium court has to have at least 10,000 seats to be a Masters 1000, 7500 seats is the minimum for a masters 500.

The average attendance has to also equal 75% capacity of the main stadium
the final weekend of play.

Queens club isn't big enough to be made into a Masters 500 event.

A grass Masters 1000 would require a conversion of one of the existing 1000s to grass or the construction of a new venue entirely.

If any place should have a Masters 1000 on grass I would think it would be Australia, they have had so many great grass court champions, it seems only natural the country should have a big grass court tournament.
 
I would say get rid of smurf clay at Madrid (what a disgrace to cc tennis) and replace it with grass. Shift Rome and RG one week earlier. Postpone wimbly by 1 week to make way for Madrid Grass Masters in between and allowing sufficient rest for players before wimbly. Tiriac will also be happy :)
 

Feather

Legend
The main problem with adding a grass Masters 1000 is venue, the ATP has guidelines that must be met by a tournament in regards to attendance and seating to be considered Masters 1000.

The venues stadium court has to have at least 10,000 seats to be a Masters 1000, 7500 seats is the minimum for a masters 500.

The average attendance has to also equal 75% capacity of the main stadium
the final weekend of play.

Queens club isn't big enough to be made into a Masters 500 event.

A grass Masters 1000 would require a conversion of one of the existing 1000s to grass or the construction of a new venue entirely.

If any place should have a Masters 1000 on grass I would think it would be Australia, they have had so many great grass court champions, it seems only natural the country should have a big grass court tournament.

Nice post, very informative, never knew all these !
 
The main problem with adding a grass Masters 1000 is venue, the ATP has guidelines that must be met by a tournament in regards to attendance and seating to be considered Masters 1000.

The venues stadium court has to have at least 10,000 seats to be a Masters 1000, 7500 seats is the minimum for a masters 500.
Halle has 12,300, Queens has 6,000+


The average attendance has to also equal 75% capacity of the main stadium
the final weekend of play.
I'm not quite sure of the attendance of both tournies

Queens club isn't big enough to be made into a Masters 500 event.
It can easily be renovated, to fit more people, after all, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Centre Court on Queens a temporary stadium?

A grass Masters 1000 would require a conversion of one of the existing 1000s to grass or the construction of a new venue entirely.
I think Halle could maybe be a 1000 and with some renovations, Queens, a 500

If any place should have a Masters 1000 on grass I would think it would be Australia, they have had so many great grass court champions, it seems only natural the country should have a big grass court tournament.
The thing is that all of these 'swings' happen locally, for example we have the
Australian winter hard court swing resulting in the Aussie Open,
The golden clay swing in Latin America,
The European clay swing, resulting in RG
The short grass swing in Europe resulting in Wimby
The US summer hard court swing resulting in the US Open
The Asian hard court swing, resulting in Shanghai 1000
The European indoor hard court swing resulting in Bercy / ATP WTF.

It would be too tough on the players physically to play in Australia and then maybe 1 week later, to play in the UK.

All in all though, great post, I learnt a lot from that, thank you.
 

namelessone

Legend
We could all use a bit more grass to be sure but that won't happen because the guys running the ATP are cheapskates that use the "grass is so expensive to mantain" excuse.

Personally I would like to see at least 2-3 more grass events so we would have a proper season before WB instead of a warm-up.

I would also make the AO start later and put IW,Miami(and maybe other tourneys) as warmups. I never understood the post AO period. We have a couple of clay MS that lead the road to RG. We have Canada,Cincy that go towards USO. We have a couple of indoor events late in the season that lead to WTF(end of the year indoor event).

AO has Doha/Sydney beforehand and then they play HC events in February-March to pave the way for... the clay season. It's kinda silly IMO.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
The only thing that would be needed, really, would be one more week between RG and Wimbledon (not likely to happen, I know). Then:

- Leave Queen's when it is in the calendar (just after RG) but bump it to 500 status after the necessary renovations; another, new 250 can also be added at the same time
- Bump Halle to M1000 status and schedule it the week following Queen's
- The week after, schedule Rosmalen and Eastbourne
- Then, Wimbledon

You're then left with 10 M1000's (including MC), so either keep the rule as is as far as mandatory tourneys are concerned (ie players would gain an extra, optional M1000) or downgrade one, probably Shanghai (doesn't deserve such a status anyway). Could also be Bercy, as the new schedule just before the YEC will probably hurt it quite a lot.

Finding an extra week in the schedule wouldn't be that difficult if IW and Miami and downgraded to 'normal' M1000 (who needs 96-player tournaments spanning ten days each?). Of course, moving a slam (presumably RG, to fill in the 'gap' left in March) would be the biggest problem, even if it's just for one measly week...
 

Blinkism

Legend
Grass needs more important tournaments for sure. Wimbledon is cherished as the ultimate prize in tennis. Yet.....it's played on a surface that is completely irrelevant outside of the tournament itself. That's pretty ironic if you ask me.

That's what makes it even more special, now.
 

Raz11

Professional
The only thing that would be needed, really, would be one more week between RG and Wimbledon (not likely to happen, I know). Then:

- Leave Queen's when it is in the calendar (just after RG) but bump it to 500 status after the necessary renovations; another, new 250 can also be added at the same time
- Bump Halle to M1000 status and schedule it the week following Queen's
- The week after, schedule Rosmalen and Eastbourne
- Then, Wimbledon

You're then left with 10 M1000's (including MC), so either keep the rule as is as far as mandatory tourneys are concerned (ie players would gain an extra, optional M1000) or downgrade one, probably Shanghai (doesn't deserve such a status anyway). Could also be Bercy, as the new schedule just before the YEC will probably hurt it quite a lot.

Finding an extra week in the schedule wouldn't be that difficult if IW and Miami and downgraded to 'normal' M1000 (who needs 96-player tournaments spanning ten days each?). Of course, moving a slam (presumably RG, to fill in the 'gap' left in March) would be the biggest problem, even if it's just for one measly week...

That would be good if they could just squeeze in one more week. The other alternative would be to have the grass master after wimbledon like they have miami/indian wells after AO.
 

Gizo

Legend
As has been said, unless the gap between the French Open and Wimbledon is extended, there is no way to accommodate a grass court masters event.

Really Queen's and Halle should both have been made 500 events instead of tournaments like Memphis or Valencia. However the organisers at both events must be delighted with their 250 status. They get better fields than most 500 events but can offer lower prize money and face less tournament regulations and criteria. A win-win situation all around.

I would have preferred Barcelona to have been upgraded to a clay court masters event rather than this Madrid monstrosity. Barcelona is the home of clay court tennis, and the ATP Godo tournament there has a very rich history.

At the end of the season, I think one masters series tournament is enough instead of two, but it should be indoors. It won't happen but I would have liked to have seen a German indoor masters tournament in that slot. Paris shouldn't host both a slam and a masters event, and the Shanghai tournament is almost as big a joke as Madrid is.
 
S

srinrajesh

Guest
Upgrade Queens or Halle to a Masters 1000, downgrade Monte Carlo (halfway there already after it became non-mandatory) or Shanghai to a 500.

It can only be upgraded to a 1000 if there is minimum one week gap after french open. They could make Miami or Indian Wells into 500 event so that it becomes a weekly event to gain an additional week.
Also U.S certainly doesn't need as much masters events based on the list below

Country wise list of Masters 1000

US-3
Canada-1

France-1
Spain-1
Monte Carlo-1
Italy-1

China-1

Asia does need one so we have to downgrade one of the US tourney's to make a grass Masters 1000 or increase tournaments to 10 and make two non mandatory
 
S

srinrajesh

Guest
As has been said, unless the gap between the French Open and Wimbledon is extended, there is no way to accommodate a grass court masters event.

Really Queen's and Halle should both have been made 500 events instead of tournaments like Memphis or Valencia. However the organisers at both events must be delighted with their 250 status. They get better fields than most 500 events but can offer lower prize money and face less tournament regulations and criteria. A win-win situation all around.

I would have preferred Barcelona to have been upgraded to a clay court masters event rather than this Madrid monstrosity. Barcelona is the home of clay court tennis, and the ATP Godo tournament there has a very rich history.

At the end of the season, I think one masters series tournament is enough instead of two, but it should be indoors. It won't happen but I would have liked to have seen a German indoor masters tournament in that slot. Paris shouldn't host both a slam and a masters event, and the Shanghai tournament is almost as big a joke as Madrid is.

agree with u regarding the barcelona move as well as stuttgart or moscow gaining a Masters 1000. Paris and Stuttgart probably have the biggest history indoors so that's why Paris has got the move now
 
S

srinrajesh

Guest
Also it was moved from Germany after retirement of Becker as he had a huge following ..
 

-Bobo-

Semi-Pro
They need to bring back carpet and make it two masters per surface. One of the slams should be on carpet as well, we need some frigging variety, don't get me wrong I didn't like the 90's much better where almost everything was fast and dudes with big serve could win entire tournaments against far superior players but at least there was more variety than there is now and I wouldn't mind seeing courts where serve and volley was more realistic. In 2010 or 11 when llodra made that run at paris he was playing some good first strike tennis and it was awesome. That way you would see long rallies on some surfaces/tournaments like with current tennis and also some of the old styles. Now as far as the schedule.... i dunno which tournaments I'd change or move, probably the aus open i guess so you could go carpet - clay - grass - hard, though in terms of adapting it might be better to go slow to fast so clay hard grass carpet but then the whole schedule would have to be completely changed.

Same thing with the YEC every year change the surface to be fair for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Apun94

Hall of Fame
There needs to be schedule changes to accomodate a grass Masters 1000 event, which I am heavily in favor of.

The break between Wimbledon and Toronto/Montreal is one of the biggest breaks in the calendar, and is probably the biggest for a lot of players. I would think that would need to be cut down as, I'm sure, making a grass Masters 1000 event could not take place concurrently with any 250 or 500 events and there must be at least a one week break between it and Wimbledon. So, after Roland Garros, we could have a one week break, followed by two grass-court 250s/500, followed by a grass Masters event, another one-week break, followed by Wimbledon.

I really do not disagree with you there, but it really would be too exhausting for the players. Shortening the hard court season would be best. Too many HCs.
 

DunlopDood

Semi-Pro
I guess if you were to have a masters 1000 on grass then it would have to be after Wimbledon. The break between the FO and wimbledon is just too short to have such a large tournament I think. Having it after wimbledon would be a little strange though.
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
The introduction of some grass tournaments at the Masters 1000 level would be great. But for it to make sense, these tournaments should occur before Wimbledon, which would be impossible without a change in the tennis calendar. Wimbledon would have to be pushed at least one month to the end of July, or even further if the USO could also be moved a few weeks later. Right now, RG and Wimbledon are much too close for this to be possible.
But yes, it would be great to have some more relevant grass tournaments.
 
Top