Should mandatory tournaments be reduced?

[George Turner]

Unless you're an old man, you have to play every major, every masters bar Monte Carlo, plus four smaller events. Every year.

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis. Players don't like playing two weeks in a row. And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries, thus avoiding the points penalty that comes from skipping mandatory tournaments.

The system is very rigid and inflexible. If I was a pro i'd rather train, lift weights and rest rather than annually play a tournament I don't like. Pros should be allowed to do what they think is right for them, whether being a Federesque part timer or Thiemesque overplaying.

The argument against this is that it could De value tournaments. But they're devalued anyway if players show up who don't want to be there for anything beyond a first round loser cheque.

Should the mandatory tournament system be changed?

 

[TahoeTennis]

Increased not reduced like i can't believe it's not butter

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Yes but not for the players I don't like

 

[Otacon]

Unless you're an old man, you have to play every major, every masters bar Monte Carlo, plus four smaller events. Every year.

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis. Players don't like playing two weeks in a row. And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries, thus avoiding the points penalty that comes from skipping mandatory tournaments.

The system is very rigid and inflexible. If I was a pro i'd rather train, lift weights and rest rather than annually play a tournament I don't like. Pros should be allowed to do what they think is right for them, whether being a Federesque part timer or Thiemesque overplaying.

The argument against this is that it could De value tournaments. But they're devalued anyway if players show up who don't want to be there for anything beyond a first round loser cheque.

Should the mandatory tournament system be changed?

Good topic for reflection.

 

[ChaelAZ]

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis.

Nah.

The older players complain because they want to play less because of fitness.
The younger players complain because they just want to work less, because they want to work less.

 

[True Fanerer]

Need a more foolproof way of dealing with injury excuses.

 

[mike danny]

Yes.

Only make 1 masters event as preparation for every slam or WTF.

Ditch Miami after AO an only play IW.

Only play Rome before RG because one clay warm-up is enough.

Only play Cincy before the USO because one HC warm-up is sufficient.

Only play Paris before the WTF, with a week off in between, since one indoor warm-up is enough.

So that leaves us with 4 masters, 4 slams an the WTF. 9 mandatory events. More than enough.

 

[Chadillac]

Playing a match every 3-4 days isnt asking a professional athlete alot.

Tour is becoming a bunch of tomics

 

[ADuck]

I like this idea but it will never come to fruition because of da $$$$$

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Ditch clay season.

 

[Mainad]

Unless you're an old man, you have to play every major, every masters bar Monte Carlo, plus four smaller events. Every year.

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis. Players don't like playing two weeks in a row. And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries, thus avoiding the points penalty that comes from skipping mandatory tournaments.

The system is very rigid and inflexible. If I was a pro i'd rather train, lift weights and rest rather than annually play a tournament I don't like. Pros should be allowed to do what they think is right for them, whether being a Federesque part timer or Thiemesque overplaying.

The argument against this is that it could De value tournaments. But they're devalued anyway if players show up who don't want to be there for anything beyond a first round loser cheque.

Should the mandatory tournament system be changed?

I do believe that the business of back to back Masters should be scrapped. It's becoming more and more difficult for top players to give their best efforts in 2 different tournaments 2 weeks in a row and at least one of the tournaments often suffers as a consequence.

 

[ollinger]

The system is very rigid and inflexible

And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries

Ummmm, so which is it? The system is inflexible, or it's easy to skip tournaments. If it's easy to skip one, what exactly is the problem here?

 

[Sport]

Yes.

Only make 1 masters event as preparation for every slam or WTF.

Ditch Miami after AO an only play IW.

Only play Rome before RG because one clay warm-up is enough.

Only play Cincy before the USO because one HC warm-up is sufficient.

Only play Paris before the WTF, with a week off in between, since one indoor warm-up is enough.

So that leaves us with 4 masters, 4 slams an the WTF. 9 mandatory events. More than enough.

That should only be valid for old players.

 

[ak24alive]

Unless you're an old man, you have to play every major, every masters bar Monte Carlo, plus four smaller events. Every year.

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis. Players don't like playing two weeks in a row. And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries, thus avoiding the points penalty that comes from skipping mandatory tournaments.

The system is very rigid and inflexible. If I was a pro i'd rather train, lift weights and rest rather than annually play a tournament I don't like. Pros should be allowed to do what they think is right for them, whether being a Federesque part timer or Thiemesque overplaying.

The argument against this is that it could De value tournaments. But they're devalued anyway if players show up who don't want to be there for anything beyond a first round loser cheque.

Should the mandatory tournament system be changed?

Keep six masters 1000 mandatory. MC, Paris Bercy and Canada not mandatory. Rest is good.

 

[reaper]

I don't think any tournament should be compulsory. The vast majority of top players will still play the Masters series while ever it offers big prize money and high ranking points.

 

[Sudacafan]

What do you think would happen if no tournament was compulsory.
How would players react?

 

[coolboarder]

Yes, I would be in favor of reducing the mandatory participation at Masters events from 8 to 6 as long as they add 2 grass court Masters and requires to participation at least 2 events of each surface, grass, clay and hard court. I truly believes that if you add two grass Masters, you'd see ranking being closely even throughout the board according to their strength. I would bet you that grass court specialist would prosper in the ranking out of nowhere.

 

[justasport]

no

 

[KG1965]

Yes.

Only make 1 masters event as preparation for every slam or WTF.

Ditch Miami after AO an only play IW.

Only play Rome before RG because one clay warm-up is enough.

Only play Cincy before the USO because one HC warm-up is sufficient.

Only play Paris before the WTF, with a week off in between, since one indoor warm-up is enough.

So that leaves us with 4 masters, 4 slams an the WTF. 9 mandatory events. More than enough.

IMHO Mandatory = no Warm up.
Mandatory: IW, MIAMI, 2 on red clay, Canada, Shanghai
Warm up: 1 on red clay, Cincy, Paris.

 

[octobrina10]

Unless you're an old man, you have to play every major, every masters bar Monte Carlo, plus four smaller events. Every year.

This seems to becoming more and more of a problem in modern tennis. Players don't like playing two weeks in a row. And they can easily skip tournaments by making up BS injuries, thus avoiding the points penalty that comes from skipping mandatory tournaments.

The system is very rigid and inflexible. If I was a pro i'd rather train, lift weights and rest rather than annually play a tournament I don't like. Pros should be allowed to do what they think is right for them, whether being a Federesque part timer or Thiemesque overplaying.

The argument against this is that it could De value tournaments. But they're devalued anyway if players show up who don't want to be there for anything beyond a first round loser cheque.

Should the mandatory tournament system be changed?

GS tournaments are not ATP tournaments and they are not mandatory events for the ATP players. But GS tourneys count towards a player's ranking and a player can earn a lot of ranking points, that's why players participate in them.

 

[octobrina10]

Ditch clay season.

Ditch the grass season, it's in the middle of the clay season.

 

[octobrina10]

That should only be valid for old players.

An old player has to play only 4 tournaments per year (if he has played over 600 matches and has been a pro player over 12 years):

 

[Deleted member 756514]

I am still not sure what exactly are the penalties for skipping mandatory tournaments.
If i am correct, you get awarded zero points. So what's the penalty there? It's not like your points are being subtracted. There are no monetary fines either. So what exactly is the penalty?

 

[Deleted member 756514]

And moreover, tje commitment rules apply for only the top 30 guys. But i have heard even players outside the top 30 complaining of the schedule.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...xpanding-the-game-of-tennis-worldwide.616206/

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yes, but it is not happening any time soon.

 

[octobrina10]

I am still not sure what exactly are the penalties for skipping mandatory tournaments.
If i am correct, you get awarded zero points. So what's the penalty there? It's not like your points are being subtracted. There are no monetary fines either. So what exactly is the penalty?

You'll find some answers here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/rankings-faq

... and all the answers here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/corporate/rulebook

 

[Deleted member 756514]

You'll find some answers here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/rankings-faq

... and all the answers here:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/corporate/rulebook

This is the only thing i found which is technically a penalty -

Players with direct acceptance who do not play an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournament will be suspended from a subsequent ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event, which will be the next highest points earned ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event within the next 12 months.

 

[octobrina10]

This is the only thing i found which is technically a penalty -

You are correct.

As for the ATP 500 events, look at Raonic's Rankings Breakdown:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/milos-raonic/r975/rankings-breakdown?team=singles

- 18 tournaments count towards his ranking, among them is one ATP-500 tourney with 'zero' points, which is a penalty (a 0-pointer); he got this penalty for playing less ATP 500 events last year than required - three instead of four. The penalty will expire on Oct.29, 2018. It means that these 'zero' points can't be replaced until the penalty expires.
- Currently, his points from Delray Beach are in the 'Non-Countable Tournaments' section due to this penalty.

 

[thrust]

I do believe that the business of back to back Masters should be scrapped. It's becoming more and more difficult for top players to give their best efforts in 2 different tournaments 2 weeks in a row and at least one of the tournaments often suffers as a consequence.

I Agree!

 

[Deleted member 756514]

Players with direct acceptance who do not play an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournament will be suspended from a subsequent ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event, which will be the next highest points earned ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event within the next 12 months.

@octobrina10 can you provide any example of this actually happening?

 

[octobrina10]

@octobrina10 can you provide any example of this actually happening?

I know that this hasn't happened to Rafa. I don't know whether or not this has happened to others.

 

[captainbryce]

Yes.

Only make 1 masters event as preparation for every slam or WTF.

Ditch Miami after AO an only play IW.

Only play Rome before RG because one clay warm-up is enough.

Only play Cincy before the USO because one HC warm-up is sufficient.

Only play Paris before the WTF, with a week off in between, since one indoor warm-up is enough.

So that leaves us with 4 masters, 4 slams an the WTF. 9 mandatory events. More than enough.

How about making a grass court masters event (Queens or Halle) to play before Wimbledon?

 

[Red Rick]

I agree. The points and prize money should guarantee enough participation.

Just make all the Slams mandatory

 

[Lukhas]

I am still not sure what exactly are the penalties for skipping mandatory tournaments.
If i am correct, you get awarded zero points. So what's the penalty there? It's not like your points are being subtracted. There are no monetary fines either. So what exactly is the penalty?

If I recall correctly and to be more accurate, you get a zero pointer in the rankings system. Those are points you can't compensate by going at a 250 or a 500 (excluding Monte-Carlo) due to how the rankings work. Usually it isn't an issue, but I remember Thiem losing some points because he was playing too many 250s and the ATP had to make way in the ranking system for his less than stellar results in higher tier tournaments. I may be mistaken however.

EDIT:

I don't think any tournament should be compulsory. The vast majority of top players will still play the Masters series while ever it offers big prize money and high ranking points.

Except if you're an American the week during Monte-Carlo.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2017/04/20/the-proud-tradition-of-americans-skipping-monte-carlo/

 

[PMChambers]

Compulsory 8 Masters has been the 2nd most important structure change since formation of Open Era.
8 seems about right, though timing, and structure of the 8 could do with a little change.
A 9th compulsory event in WTF is ok but don't care either way about its requirement.

 

[Sudacafan]

The real problem with tennis is that the best players get more injuries, because they play more matches in the current playoff system, which I would not change anyway.
Less mandatory tournaments would be a solution.

 

[Chadillac]

Shouldnt exo's be the first to go? Seems the guys who constantly cry are the first to tell us how great laver cup and ahu dubai are.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Playing a match every 3-4 days isnt asking a professional athlete alot.

Tour is becoming a bunch of tomics

Agree.

And the big problem is ‘they practice too much/too hard’. There was a thread about an article that did a huge research of past matches - most points don’t get to 10 shots - I believe 4 was the average. Except for Fed, practices are way harder than matches.

Why do guys hit on their off days? Are they afraid they’re going to forget how to hit a FH?

Dimitrov admitted he only took 1 week off after the WTF. And he’s not alone.

 

[Sudacafan]

Agree.

And the big problem is ‘they practice too much/too hard’. There was a thread about an article that did a huge research of past matches - most points don’t get to 10 shots - I believe 4 was the average. Except for Fed, practices are way harder than matches.

Why do guys hit on their off days? Are they afraid they’re going to forget how to hit a FH?

Dimitrov admitted he only took 1 week off after the WTF. And he’s not alone.

Good players winning matches or getting to tournaments finals play every one or two days. They do take weeks off here and there.
The important thing to consider is that a tennis season takes almost 11 months of a year. You don’t see that in other mainstream pro sports.