The Next Gen Finals - A sad gimmick meant to “expose” top tennis talent.

Fabresque

Fabresque

Legend
Can someone please tell me who’s bright idea inside the ATP headquarters was to do this? I just don’t see it as an appealing prospect. Why would all the young players want to play each other like this? Most if not all of them played each other in juniors because of the age group, wouldn’t they want to distance themselves from the whole junior demographic and make the impact on the pro level? These guys play top ranking players week in week out. Zverev for instance has shown he can hang around with the big boys. He’s already ranked ahead of seasoned veterans like Cilic and Tsonga who have been on tour for years now inside the top 20. So what’s the point? It isn’t an appealing prospect to me.

Also, the rule changes. Why? Just why? If you don’t the rules they’ve implemented, here they are.

  • Best of five sets
  • First to four games in each set
  • Tie break at 3-All
  • No-Ad scoring (receiver’s choice)
  • No lets
  • Start match 5 minutes from entry of second player onto court
  • Shot clock to ensure 25 second rule
  • Maximum of one medical timeout per player per match
  • Limits on when coaches can talk to players
  • Public will be allowed to move around during a match (except at baselines)
The bold ones are extremely dumb, it’s basically a glorified exhibition tournament. At least model it after the normal tour finals, that’d at least make it somewhat appealing.

It’s a really stupid idea, no wonder Zverev pulled out of it.
 
I actually think it’s a great idea. Money has never been more important than it today’s game. The event offers a hell of a payday for kids that, for the most part, have yet to win even a 250 event.

To make it these days you need a top tier coach, physio, nutritionist, psychologist and god know what else. How else are you going to compete with 30 year old multimillionaires with hyperbaric chambers, bionic knees and backs, and coaches that have won multiple slams themselves?

Oh, and Zverev, a 7 foot tall freak of nature, is the biggest outlier in tennis since Nadal. Teenagers don’t do well in tennis anymore. Also, Zverev pulled out to maximize his chances at the real WTF, were he stands to make a crap ton of points and money. There’s no doubt he would have played it had he not qualified for the real deal.

New rules are silly I agree, But if it makes for good entertainment, who cares? I don’t get the negativity, how exactly does this event hurt the game in any way?
 
Last edited:
el sergento said:
I actually think it’s a great idea. Money has never been more important than it today’s game. The event offers a hell of a payday for kids that, for the most part, have yet to win even a 250 event.

To make it these days you need a top tier coach, physio, nutritionist, psychologist and god know what else. How else are you going to compete with 30 year old multimillionaires with hyperbaric chambers, bionic knees and backs, and coaches that have won multiple slams themselves?

Oh, and Zverev, a 7 foot tall freak of nature, is the biggest outlier in tennis since Nadal. Teenagers don’t do well in tennis anymore. Also, Zverev pulled out to maximize his chances at the real WTF, were he stands to make a crap ton of points and money. There’s no doubt he would have played it had he not qualified for the real deal.

New rules are silly I agree, But if it makes for good entertainment, who cares? I don’t get the negativity, how exactly does this event hurt the game in any way?
Click to expand...
You make a compelling argument. Couple things I hadn’t really considered. The injection of cash may really help their careers.

If I might offer a theory or two on the resentment:

I think that people are disappointed and astounded that mediocrity should be rewarded this way. Clearly it’s desperation on the ATP’s part to establish some sort of succession plan. But the fact that these players couldn’t do it on their own has people flabbergasted. People are fed up with the constant letdowns from purportedly promising talents (and the accompanying empty hype).
 
Why not use this new tournament to try new rules? They will also use the Hawkeye for every line call. The technology is there why not use it?

Not sure about 4 games set. But to win, you need 3 set of 4 points, the same as 2 set of 6. Curious to see what it will be like. Tie break at 3-3, many sets will be decided with tie breaks.

No-ad, that is weird for sure. I see that in junior level tennis to speed up games. I prefer ad.

25 sec play clock? About freaking time!!! no more Nadalesque time wasted between points... This I hope is kept for real ATP tournaments. So sick of players abusing of the towel wipe and ball choices to sloooow down the game.

No lets, this has been around for decades. Actually makes sense when you think about it. The bounce off the tape of the net is unpredictable and will help speed up the game and add drama due to probable higher double faults.

I can't wait to see how this turns out. I will be watching for sure.
 
Fabresque said:
Can someone please tell me who’s bright idea inside the ATP headquarters was to do this? I just don’t see it as an appealing prospect. Why would all the young players want to play each other like this? Most if not all of them played each other in juniors because of the age group, wouldn’t they want to distance themselves from the whole junior demographic and make the impact on the pro level? These guys play top ranking players week in week out. Zverev for instance has shown he can hang around with the big boys. He’s already ranked ahead of seasoned veterans like Cilic and Tsonga who have been on tour for years now inside the top 20. So what’s the point? It isn’t an appealing prospect to me.

Also, the rule changes. Why? Just why? If you don’t the rules they’ve implemented, here they are.

  • Best of five sets
  • First to four games in each set
  • Tie break at 3-All
  • No-Ad scoring (receiver’s choice)
  • No lets
  • Start match 5 minutes from entry of second player onto court
  • Shot clock to ensure 25 second rule
  • Maximum of one medical timeout per player per match
  • Limits on when coaches can talk to players
  • Public will be allowed to move around during a match (except at baselines)
The bold ones are extremely dumb, it’s basically a glorified exhibition tournament. At least model it after the normal tour finals, that’d at least make it somewhat appealing.

It’s a really stupid idea, no wonder Zverev pulled out of it.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of the aggressive format changes, but the one thing this has done is lit a fire for these younger players to have a goal for the year. The ATP should be offering some points for the event, ATP 500 would be appropriate, but start slow with 1/4 WTF points.

Young players that have impressed this year in the quest for Milan:
1. Shaps
2. Rublev
3. Donaldson
4. Medvedev (playing challenger this week to squeak in, but no matter it appears with the Zverev withdrawal)

The one thing that really bugs me is this qualifier tournament for Italian players. The ATP honchos should be picking the best player that did not make the event which would probably be Tsitsipas.

Zverev's exit makes the event much more open and interesting. We'll see how the play goes at the event which will be the bottom line. Some were skeptical of Laver Cup which was an outrageous success.:rolleyes:
 
Meles said:
Not a fan of the aggressive format changes, but the one thing this has done is lit a fire for these younger players to have a goal for the year. The ATP should be offering some points for the event, ATP 500 would be appropriate, but start slow with 1/4 WTF points.

Young players that have impressed this year in the quest for Milan:
1. Shaps
2. Rublev
3. Donaldson
4. Medvedev (playing challenger this week to squeak in, but no matter it appears with the Zverev withdrawal)

The one thing that really bugs me is this qualifier tournament for Italian players. The ATP honchos should be picking the best player that did not make the event which would probably be Tsitsipas.

Zverev's exit makes the event much more open and interesting. We'll see how the play goes at the event which will be the bottom line. Some were skeptical of Laver Cup which was an outrageous success.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Slippery slope with putting points on offer for a restricted subset of the tour. This is a total beta test. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Despite not earning their stripes like every preceding generation, they did earn their collective Guinea pig status.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Slippery slope with putting points on offer for a restricted subset of the tour. This is a total beta test. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Despite not earning their stripes like every preceding generation, they did earn their collective Guinea pig status.
Click to expand...
They earned it and deserve points. No points is ridiculous, but frankly with the rabid rules changes beta is the best choice. Someone with half a brain needs to reign in this lunacy. Laver Cup did 10 point superbreaker in place of 3rd set. Why do something so aggressive that it's sure to fail?:confused:
 
Meles said:
They earned it and deserve points. No points is ridiculous, but frankly with the rabid rules changes beta is the best choice. Someone with half a brain needs to reign in this lunacy. Laver Cup did 10 point superbreaker in place of 3rd set. Why do something so aggressive that it's sure to fail?:confused:
Click to expand...
No points is ridiculous? Think that through. 90 percent of the tour is barred from participating at the event. Can of worms, no? They moving toward a separate tour? Come on. Lots of potential positives for the ATP as far as rules/format/etc. going forward. But ranking points can’t be a factor.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
No points is ridiculous? Think that through. 90 percent of the tour is barred from participating at the event. Can of worms, no? They moving toward a separate tour? Come on. Lots of potential positives for the ATP as far as rules/format/etc. going forward. But ranking points can’t be a factor.
Click to expand...
It is the same with WTF. These players need a bump to get up in the main draws. Going forward all young players will have the same opportunity. Greedy veterans etc. rule while the game suffers.:(

Frankly ATP should take over half of the wildcards at all tour events rather than let the clown tournament directors put a bunch of undeserving local trash in the event. A couple spots is fine, but they need to stop putting up roadblocks to seeing quality tennis.:rolleyes:
 
Meles said:
It is the same with WTF. These players need a bump to get up in the main draws. Going forward all young players will have the same opportunity. Greedy veterans etc. rule while the game suffers.:(

Frankly ATP should take over half of the wildcards at all tour events rather than let the clown tournament directors put a bunch of undeserving local trash in the event. A couple spots is fine, but they need to stop putting up roadblocks to seeing quality tennis.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
YEC not the same. Any stiff is eligible to qualify, provided he gets his ish together. This NextGen exo is age-restricted. Maybe it is just that dire that a tiered tour is inevitable.
 
Fabresque said:
Can someone please tell me who’s bright idea inside the ATP headquarters was to do this? I just don’t see it as an appealing prospect. Why would all the young players want to play each other like this? Most if not all of them played each other in juniors because of the age group, wouldn’t they want to distance themselves from the whole junior demographic and make the impact on the pro level? These guys play top ranking players week in week out. Zverev for instance has shown he can hang around with the big boys. He’s already ranked ahead of seasoned veterans like Cilic and Tsonga who have been on tour for years now inside the top 20. So what’s the point? It isn’t an appealing prospect to me.

Also, the rule changes. Why? Just why? If you don’t the rules they’ve implemented, here they are.

  • Best of five sets
  • First to four games in each set
  • Tie break at 3-All
  • No-Ad scoring (receiver’s choice)
  • No lets
  • Start match 5 minutes from entry of second player onto court
  • Shot clock to ensure 25 second rule
  • Maximum of one medical timeout per player per match
  • Limits on when coaches can talk to players
  • Public will be allowed to move around during a match (except at baselines)
The bold ones are extremely dumb, it’s basically a glorified exhibition tournament. At least model it after the normal tour finals, that’d at least make it somewhat appealing.

It’s a really stupid idea, no wonder Zverev pulled out of it.
Click to expand...

That just about sums it up. Though i agree with the one medical timeout per match to put a stop to Djokovics blatant gamesmanship :cool:

Making an event like this tells me the ATP are worried about the lack of top quality talent emerging.
 
I still think it’s a good idea, and the pay structure on the Tour is so warped that this tier format for younger players is warranted imo.

Just look at the rigors of the game today. How many top tier pros with established careers and money to burn couldn’t even finish the season due to injury? And the two dominant players this year missed most of last year due to injury and then maximised their chances this year by only playing when they felt fit and ready, a luxury very few players have.

You can’t become the kind of athlete it takes to make it on the tour these days without tons of cash and time. The days of talent and hard work alone being sufficient are long gone. I’m sick of the current cast of supporting characters that make up the tour outside of the big 3.5. If this helps bring in some new blood, then good.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix1983 said:
In prior generations, youngsters didn't need their own special tournament, because the best of them were good enough to challenge and defeat the reigning players.

This current generation should be ashamed (bar Zverev).

Agreed upon by all objective tennis observers.
Click to expand...
So, now you speak for all objective tennis observers? I didn't know that. First, it's more about how the players feel, then how we feel. If they see a benefit to this, then let them go ahead and participate. No one is forcing them. They seem to see it as a way of establishing themselves in the game. There are many things I love about tennis, but one thing I don't is this new tendency for the current generation to hang on as long as they possibly can. In the past, players moved on to other things much earlier. But, advances in medicine and training is making it possible for players to be high performance athletes longer than in previous times. So, what is the next generation to do? They are challenging and many of them are making strides, but it takes time and experience. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the up and coming players. If you don't like the event, you don't have to watch. But, there is no need for people to go on ad nauseum about how much they hate it.

And, this goes for all aspects of tennis BTW. I remember when the US Open was at Forest Hills on grass. So many people complained and it was changed to a clay surface. Then people complained about that and it was changed to hard court. Now, I still hear people complaining that there are too many hard court tournaments. It seems no matter what the sport does, people complain. There are measures that can still improve the sport, but there is nothing wrong in awarding the younger players their own tournament. From my perspective, they should use the regular tennis rules, but that is just an opinion. I will watch as I want to get to know these young players. They ARE the next generation whether or not anyone likes that fact.
 
fun-1513620_960_720.jpg


let them have some fun... :oops:
 
Mainad said:
The whole thing is just a sideshow with no real significance but we might still get to see some good tennis on show between the various match-ups. If that proves to be the case then it won't have been entirely in vain!
Click to expand...
There's several guys in there I really like. I'd put Coric at the top of my list just because I like his well balanced game. I like Tiafoe only because he's local (all his strokes look like they're multi-tasking though!) but would be happy if Tsitsipas gets in.

I get that the money will help some of these guys but you never know who's going to blossom. Goffin struggled between the mid 100's/200's at 21 and under and could probably have used the cash but no one ever saw him as a top 10 guy. With the game getting older in general I think it's too soon to be knighting these guys looming around the mid 50's when they may just stay in the mid 50's for years.
 
Meles said:
Not a fan of the aggressive format changes, but the one thing this has done is lit a fire for these younger players to have a goal for the year. The ATP should be offering some points for the event, ATP 500 would be appropriate, but start slow with 1/4 WTF points.

Young players that have impressed this year in the quest for Milan:
1. Shaps
2. Rublev
3. Donaldson
4. Medvedev (playing challenger this week to squeak in, but no matter it appears with the Zverev withdrawal)

The one thing that really bugs me is this qualifier tournament for Italian players. The ATP honchos should be picking the best player that did not make the event which would probably be Tsitsipas.

Zverev's exit makes the event much more open and interesting. We'll see how the play goes at the event which will be the bottom line. Some were skeptical of Laver Cup which was an outrageous success.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They should have given a WC to Thiem. He could have used the match practice
 
Phoenix1983 said:
In prior generations, youngsters didn't need their own special tournament, because the best of them were good enough to challenge and defeat the reigning players.

This current generation should be ashamed (bar Zverev).

Agreed upon by all objective tennis observers.
Click to expand...

Starting to like this concluding sentence to many of your recent posts. ;)
 
Just give em bonus points for beating Top 5 or Top 10 players at the Masters and Slams.

Then watch the young uns start making a climb. Right now the points structure is too lopsided for all but the once-in-a-generation-talent kind of player to topple any of the established older guard.

Additional tournaments are only going to put more miles on their legs and make them easy fodder for the olderers and goingbaldadals
 
nikdom said:
Just give em bonus points for beating Top 5 or Top 10 players at the Masters and Slams.

Then watch the young uns start making a climb. Right now the points structure is too lopsided for all but the once-in-a-generation-talent kind of player to topple any of the established older guard.

Additional tournaments are only going to put more miles on their legs and make them easy fodder for the olderers and goingbaldadals
Click to expand...

I think the old tour before the 90's did do that; players got more credit or points for beating a top 10 player! I wonder why they got away from that? :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
Some of you people need to be more open minded about the rule changes.
It's not like they changed Gran Slam rules right before the finals, relax.
 
Fiero425 said:
I think the old tour before the 90's did do that; players got more credit or points for beating a top 10 player! I wonder why they got away from that? :rolleyes: :p ;)
Click to expand...
I seem to recall something like that as well. I don't remember hearing anything about it being done away with either, or why.

Don't think it should be brought back. Nothing wrong with moving up by winning. Ya do that enough and you'll see the results.
 
sportmac said:
I seem to recall something like that as well. I don't remember hearing anything about it being done away with either, or why.

Don't think it should be brought back. Nothing wrong with moving up by winning. Ya do that enough and you'll see the results.
Click to expand...

Giving bonus points for beating someone in the top 10 would help separate the legitimate 2nd rung from the "also-rans" that luck out with 2nd rate victories because of upsets or being a Lucky Loser! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
ONgame said:
Some of you people need to be more open minded about the rule changes.
It's not like they changed Gran Slam rules right before the finals, relax.
Click to expand...

Being old fashioned I probably would have objected more when it came to change, but the sport has to keep up with the times! Matches are going ridiculously long on both tours; men and women's matches have been 3+ hours in BO3 and 4+ hrs. in BO5! I'm still trying to recover from AO final in 2012 between Nole and Rafa! I didn't take a nap during the day and figured one of them would be exhausted due to respective semis they had; Djokovic over Murray took almost 5 hours! I didn't get to bed until almost 10 am! The tour has to do something to cut these matches short; call and penalize for slow play! Rafa obviously abuses the clock the most in the history of the game! An exhibition/tourney from 40 years ago had TB's at 5 all with no-ad scoring! It really sped up play! We need to do something to keep interest in the game! I've been a devotee for over 45 years, but even I haven't paid much attention esp. to the ladies! It's been so whacked out since Serena left; odd #1's! Never been this bad with Carolina Woz holding top spot for a year 1/2 without even winning a major! Venus never won a title, but actually had a chance at #1 during the USO! How does that happen? Nole won 2 majors and 4 Masters, but still dropped to #2 at the end of the last season! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
It's a great way to experiment with long entrenched tennis rules that may or may not be obsolete. I'm sure the results will be studied vigorously, and perhaps lead to logical changes in the sport overall.
 
More of an experiment to than anything else. These young players are merely guinea pigs for the ATP to trial their seemingly ridiculous new rules and to generate some interest in the Next Generation. Only Zverev has shown the ability to break out of this fragile mould thus far, some other ones developing well
They'll probably not be in the league of the Big 3 but should be able to forge excellent careers once the old guys eventually retire.
 
next gen is a good idea.

under 21s a chance in spotlight, big prize money to help building a team (own massage/trainer/coach/better hotels/flight upgrades)

also a good tourney to try out some new stuff with the rules to see how it goes.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
In prior generations, youngsters didn't need their own special tournament, because the best of them were good enough to challenge and defeat the reigning players.

This current generation should be ashamed (bar Zverev).

Agreed upon by all objective tennis observers.
Click to expand...

Actually there was an event for 21 and under players called the "young masters" in the 80s that was played after the YEC. Becker won it 3 years in a row. Came across an article from 1986 where Becker says he was more nervous before the final than he was before the Wimbledon final. It was played in Germany.
 
Moose Malloy said:
Actually there was an event for 21 and under players called the "young masters" in the 80s that was played after the YEC. Becker won it 3 years in a row. Came across an article from 1986 where Becker says he was more nervous before the final than he was before the Wimbledon final. It was played in Germany.
Click to expand...

I like to think I didn't miss matches or tournaments back then! My memory might be shot, but I really don't remember this tournament at all! The Grand Slam CUP was about as much as I can recall from that era which was an extra YEC where points accum. from the Majors alone! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
Fiero425 said:
I like to think I didn't miss matches or tournaments back then! My memory might be shot, but I really don't remember this tournament at all! The Grand Slam CUP was about as much as I can recall from that era which was an extra YEC where points accum. from the Majors alone! :rolleyes: :p ;)
Click to expand...

Grand Slam Cup was played in the 90s, I remember it.

I wasn't aware of the tournament Moose refers to - any official record of it anywhere?
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Grand Slam Cup was played in the 90s, I remember it.

I wasn't aware of the tournament Moose refers to - any official record of it anywhere?
Click to expand...

If you google Becker, Young Masters and 1986 many articles about the tournament from LA Times and NY Times come up

It's also listed in Vanquers by Michel Sutter(this is a comprehensive record of every event played from 1946-1991, many editors on wiki use it)

The 1985 Young Masters Final was played in Berlin on January 5, 1986. Becker d Wilander 6-1, 7-6, 6-0.

The 1986 final was played in Stuttgart on December 14, 1986(one week after the Masters in New York)
Becker d Svensson 7-6, 7-6, 6-3.

The 1984 final was played in Birmingham, England. January 7, 1985. Becker d Edberg
4-6, 6-3, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3. images of the final from Getty images come up when you do a search.
 
Last edited:
WARNING: RANT
I don't understand the ire being thrown at this tournament or its participants. I don't agree with the rule changes, but it is not being imposed on the entire ATP. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. But, what's the problem here? Why is there so much anger being directed towards this event? It makes no sense. I have been watching tennis for almost 45 years, and have seen a lot of players come and go. Some lived up to their expectations; others didn't. Many were derailed by serious accidents and injuries such as Tracy Austin and Anna Kournikova, but others flourished and succeeded. The nature of sport is that we see great champions achieve extraordinary feats and then they retire and move on. The next generation moves in. It's always been this way and it always will be. I remember when Chris Evert retired and we all asked if we'd ever see anyone as good as her. Then Stefi Graf came along. Then Serena. Soon, it will be someone else. Same with the men's game. We marveled at Rod Laver, then Borg, then McEnroe, then Connors, then Sampras, and now Federer and Nadal. Who's next? No idea. But, why throw so much nastiness at these young players? They are merely trying to live out their dream just as so many have before them. I wish the nastiness would end. It's so unnecessary and uncalled for.
 
prairiegirl said:
WARNING: RANT
I don't understand the ire being thrown at this tournament or its participants. I don't agree with the rule changes, but it is not being imposed on the entire ATP. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. But, what's the problem here? Why is there so much anger being directed towards this event? It makes no sense. I have been watching tennis for almost 45 years, and have seen a lot of players come and go. Some lived up to their expectations; others didn't. Many were derailed by serious accidents and injuries such as Tracy Austin and Anna Kournikova, but others flourished and succeeded. The nature of sport is that we see great champions achieve extraordinary feats and then they retire and move on. The next generation moves in. It's always been this way and it always will be. I remember when Chris Evert retired and we all asked if we'd ever see anyone as good as her. Then Stefi Graf came along. Then Serena. Soon, it will be someone else. Same with the men's game. We marveled at Rod Laver, then Borg, then McEnroe, then Connors, then Sampras, and now Federer and Nadal. Who's next? No idea. But, why throw so much nastiness at these young players? They are merely trying to live out their dream just as so many have before them. I wish the nastiness would end. It's so unnecessary and uncalled for.
Click to expand...

Like you said there has been a steady stream of players coming over the decades until Djokovic on the men's and Serena on the women's

Two generations of players have come and no one is rising to the top. Hence th frustration
 
But, that is not true. Rafa and Roger are still dominating in a big way. They haven't left yet. From my perspective, I would rather not see this again. It's not as good for the game when there are two or three spectacular players at the top and then everyone else is well behind. Diversity is good for the game. My hope is players in the next gen will all win some of the slams and some of the big titles, and spread it around, so they all experience success. That is better for the game in the long run than having Roger and Rafa dominate for almost twenty years; that is way too long! I look forward to other players returning from their injuries so we can see some other players in the top echelons of the game. And, within 2-3 years, I expect the next gen players will get there as well. But, game domination is not good for the sport. Never has been. I would argue that as much as I love watching both Roger and Rafa play, it would be better for the sport if they retire sooner rather than later. I realize that is not a popular opinion, but it's how I feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Next Gen ATP Finals rule changes: which ones should the tour adopt?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Bartelby
Bartelby
Adv. Edberg
Big rule changes to come to the ATP shortly
3 4 5
Replies
231
Views
17K
clayqueen
clayqueen
Third Serve
The Best Next Gen?
Replies
13
Views
1K
DSH
DSH
guanzishou
The Next Gen Has Arrived
Replies
16
Views
2K
Devilito
Devilito
Third Serve
  • Poll Poll
Are the Next Gen at their peaks?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Jokervich
Jokervich
Back
Top