Where would you have a 5th Slam?

[West Coast Ace]

Another 'no' vote. The majors are special because of history; not because of a big bag with a '$' (or other denomination) on the side...

China wants one - but even though I go to the Shanghai event and support the ATP giving them a 1000, it is poorly attended until the QF. And when the big 4 retire, it might get even worse - seems like 1/2 the crowd are teeny bopper girls with crushes on the players.

 

[HipRotation]

One in South America might be cool given their tennis history and their lack of any high level tennis tournament but I can't see it happening unless there's a complete overhaul of the tennis calender and they position more slams evenly in favour of less Masters *cough*Paris-Bercy*cough*

 

[Down_the_line]

Another 'no' vote. The majors are special because of history; not because of a big bag with a '$' (or other denomination) on the side...

China wants one - but even though I go to the Shanghai event and support the ATP giving them a 1000, it is poorly attended until the QF. And when the big 4 retire, it might get even worse - seems like 1/2 the crowd are teeny bopper girls with crushes on the players.

China makes sense for a lot of reasons, but I just feel like it's too devoid of any tennis history or local talent. It would feel like a powerful country just wanting a piece of everything in the world, if you know what I mean.

The whole continent of South America badly needs an important event. The best they've got right now is an ATP 500 event in Rio de Janeiro. Additionally, they have another 250 event in Brazil as well as a 250 event in Argentina, Chile and Colombia. I suppose that's not too bad, but it feels like the talent that has come out of that continent over the years and the popularity of tennis there warrants a Masters 1000 event, especially in Argentina.

 

[Borg Number One]

You could hold a big indoor event in Texas or California. More indoor and grass events would be good for the Tour, yet you wouldn't have to add another major. With Asia, you could look at India or China in the future.

 

[coloskier]

Indoor carpet, Madison Square Garden

 

[Borg Number One]

Why hold it in America. How does the sport benefit

Biggest resources. Overall, it's great for tennis to have greater interest generated in the U.S. with another big tournament there. U.S. companies, marketing, facilities, and an affluent fan base that has a history with the sport would all be more involved. You don't necessarily have to go outside the U.S. or Europe.

 

[TeamOB]

Hold it in Africa! That whole continent is almost completely deprived of pro tennis. Is there any pro tournament held there except Casablanca? A fifth slam on any surface in Africa would be great for the sport.

 

[Down_the_line]

I don't know why, but I can't get over the fact that a Slam in China would be so gimmicky. I'm honestly not trying to sound prejudiced. It just doesn't feel right.

We know the level of tennis in China is quite low. Can somebody possibly comment on the interest level? It has undoubtedly increased a bit recently due to the success of Na Li, and I suppose Shuai Peng in doubles, but even then is there really a high level of interest in tennis there?

 

[tennisaddict]

Major in China ? Would have spectators if the final is between Federer and Li Na.

 

[Jam]

more realistically I'd like to see South America and subsequently Africa get a Masters 1000 tournament. These are big tournaments and could raise the sport's profile further. It's too US and west Europe dominated. London has wimbledon, WTFs, Queens. Paris has RG and Paris Masters. Madrid and Rome and Monte Carlo all masters. that's four out of the 9 masters in west europe, the YECs and 2 slams. So basically around half of the main stuff 1 west europe. then the US has 1 slam, IW, Miami, Cincinatti. So 1 slam and 3 masters, Canada has montreal masters and the only other 1 is shanghai. It needs to focus on new areas. So, new masters when they come around in South America, Africa and some part of Asia. If it goes to Europe it must go east europe.

AN extra 2 weeks of grass would be good too. So it's possible to play either Halle or Queens and then another tournament. A grass masters would also be great.

 

[NaBUru38]

North America and Europe already hold 12 of the 14 largest tournaments if the NGBs of the nations holding these tournies cant capitalise on that then they are seriously making a mess of it.

Exactly, that's why I'd choose Japan or Argentina.

 

[PMChambers]

No reason for another, the reality is there are enough big Tournaments on the calendar. There are effectively 13 big tournaments with 8 being compulsory Masters 1000, 1 nearly compulsory M1000 and the ITA's big 4 GS. Plus the WTF at the end. If anything they need to rejig the current and modify DC to suit, maybe having DC as a 2-3 week event similar to WTF format / world cup with round robin series and final knock out series. There needs to be more defined breaks as the end of year things is screwy.

 

[junior74]

4 is perfect.
But, if we HAD to make it 5, and I could decide:
Stockholm. Nice city in a beautiful, friendly country with a proud tennis history.

 

[ibbi]

Southern hemisphere, probably South America somewhere.

 

[Captain Ron]

I thought it was already in Cincinnati

 

[Chico]

I thought it was already in Cincinnati

The real slam is in Cincinnati. It is an insult to call it 5th.

 

[SoBad]

Monte Carlo is widely viewed as the 5th most prestigious event on the calendar and there has been a lot of talk behind the scenes recently about finally recognizing the tournament as a slam.

 

[Chico]

Monte Carlo is widely viewed as the 5th most prestigious event on the calendar and there has been a lot of talk behind the scenes recently about finally recognizing the tournament as a slam.

Or rather as ATP 500 - it barely escaped that fate. i.e. it is the only non Mandatory Masters -i.e. the least worthy Masters of all Masters tournaments.

 

[SoBad]

Or rather as ATP 500 - it barely escaped that fate. i.e. it is the only non Mandatory Masters -i.e. the least worthy Masters of all Masters tournaments.

Assigning mandatory status to the beautiful prestigious Monte Carlo (arguably more so than the AO) is an utter irrelevance -- nobody in their right mind would dream of skipping this event. Is picking up the prize money check at slams compulsory or is that optional too?:lol:

 

[PMChambers]

Or rather as ATP 500 - it barely escaped that fate. i.e. it is the only non Mandatory Masters -i.e. the least worthy Masters of all Masters tournaments.

That could make it closer to a GS as they're also non-compulsory. It has everything it needs to be a GS except the infrastructure. But there is no need for another GS so it's all mute point.

 

[Tennis sensation]

Cincinnati is the 5th slam.

It is not the 5th slam. It is the Real slam.

 

[Oh Definitely]

Haha, you guys are so predictable.

Thinking outside the rehashed and the mundane, the 5th Slam should be a NEW EVENT.

The infrastructure should be purpose built, and planning should bring the sport forward, rather than dwell on past glories.

The only logical option is to have the tournament played in Low-Earth-Orbit, with Centre Court & Show Court 1 globally funded add-on modules of the International Space Station.

Each morning, rostered players are ferried into a parking orbit, where they can warm-up and acclimatise to the artificial gravity conditions.

Those spectators who can either afford tickets, or are lucky enough to have sponsored seats or competition winners, can view the matches live, while the rest of the human race can view the games on TV or the Internet, like most of the 7 billion viewers do already…

Elegant and Super-cool to boot!

 

[West Coast Ace]

People cling to this whole legacy thing far far too much.

Fail. I've lost count of how many top pros have said "I fell in love with tennis at <insert young age here> watching <insert one of the 4 majors here>" - or something along those lines. Manufacturing a new event and saying "it's a major" isn't going to work.

And as others have said, where would it get placed in the schedule? It's hard enough to make minor changes - no one's going to buy any major moves, especially when it means adding a tournament that may de-value their tournament.

 

[Down_the_line]

Fail. I've lost count of how many top pros have said "I fell in love with tennis at <insert young age here> watching <insert one of the 4 majors here>" - or something along those lines. Manufacturing a new event and saying "it's a major" isn't going to work.

And as others have said, where would it get placed in the schedule? It's hard enough to make minor changes - no one's going to buy any major moves, especially when it means adding a tournament that may de-value their tournament.

Exactly! Players, fans and mostly everyone else in tennis embrace the history and tradition of the sport and consider it one of its best aspects. It's only these new age fanatics of a certain player - not singling out any one player's fans in particular - that don't give a crap about what happened before they started watching tennis.

Look how emotional Djokovic was holding that Wimbledon trophy. Did that look like a man who considered the grass of Wimbledon irrelevant, like some people here do? He may have tore his shirt off like a primal beast winning the Australian Open in 2012, but he sobbed tears of utter joy winning Wimbledon.

Like I said, 4 Slams is perfect, but for the sake of discussion: it would be great to have a 5th Slam somewhere with some tennis tradition. For me, the top 4 countries would be Argentina, Japan, the Czech Republic or Sweden (in no particular order). In Japan it would likely be on outdoor hard courts, in Argentina on clay courts, and in the Czech Republic/Sweden on indoor hard courts.

 

[syke]

Biggest resources. Overall, it's great for tennis to have greater interest generated in the U.S. with another big tournament there. U.S. companies, marketing, facilities, and an affluent fan base that has a history with the sport would all be more involved. You don't necessarily have to go outside the U.S. or Europe.

Maybe because the interest in U.S has more or less plateaued? And that affluent regions in Asia are an untapped market?

If you are looking for short term results, yeah why not? Let's continue with the proven formula, milk it dry.

But with any good management, planning for the future is more important than over achieving targets for the current financial year.

That's the exact same problem with the U.S Presidential election. No one stays long enough to make sure work in progress is properly seen through. The present incumbent is hardly ever made accountable for the wrong decisions made today, and it's up to the next elected President to clear up the mess. Everyone's just going for short term gains at the expense of the bigger picture.