Would a total Tour "reset" make sense?

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented action.

I tend to think it'd be beneficial.

Otherwise we'll be left with a patchwork arrangement replete with gaps at every turn (rankings, tournaments, calendar, etc.).

Thoughts?
 
Of course. It would still need to be done in stages (3-5 years), but now would be the time to plan it, and next year would be the main overhaul.
 
If there were ever a good time for that, it's now.

I wouldn't mind seeing one M1000 on grass, and players not forced to choose between Halle and Queen's.
If the ATP is driven by profitability, they'll find a way to get around it.

But if the "Big Three" maximization strategy hasn't yet been exposed as myopic, in some senses, dire realities for all involved may provide some illumination.

I'd like to see something serving a wider range of interests, personally.

Going to require significant financial restructuring, both in terms of contracts and prize money distribution.
 
Of course. It would still need to be done in stages (3-5 years), but now would be the time to plan it, and next year would be the main overhaul.
The writing's been on the wall for some time now; there's no approaching the bar set by Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. They wanted Mt. GOATmore, and they got it.

What will they do to further interest in a watered-down version of that?

Going to have to be repackaged.
 

topher

Professional
If there were ever a good time for that, it's now.

I wouldn't mind seeing one M1000 on grass, and players not forced to choose between Halle and Queen's.
The problem with this will always be Wimbledon being unwilling to be pushed back (despite clear ability in weather). And going the other way and cutting out clay portions of the calendar to expand grass make zero sense in maintaining surface diversity in an already hardcourt heavy sport.

On another note: You'd also completely lose the aura of the channel slam by making it much easier if you give grass a true separate warmup season.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
The problem with this will always be Wimbledon being unwilling to be pushed back (despite clear ability in weather). And going the other way and cutting out clay portions of the calendar to expand grass make zero sense in maintaining surface diversity in an already hardcourt heavy sport.

On another note: You'd also completely lose the aura of the channel slam by making it much easier if you give grass a true separate warmup season.
So why does clay get an entire warmup season? That's stupid and relegates grass to an also-ran surface.
 

topher

Professional
So why does clay get an entire warmup season? That's stupid and relegates grass to an also-ran surface.
Why does hardcourt get about 3 warmup seasons? Because tradition, inertia and $$$, the whole reason for the entire schedule. Hardcourt's footprint needs to be reduced, not clay.

I didn't say grass shouldn't get a warmup season, but those that propose getting it at the expense of the clay warmup season are Fed-lovers *and* Nad-haters 99.9% of the time and couldn't care less about improving the sport.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Why does hardcourt get about 3 warmup seasons? Because tradition, inertia and $$$, the whole reason for the entire schedule. Hardcourt's footprint needs to be reduced, not clay.

I didn't say grass shouldn't get a warmup season, but those that propose getting it at the expense of the clay warmup season are Fed-lovers *and* Nad-haters 99.9% of the time and couldn't care less about improving the sport.
Whatever the reasons, one can't really argue that grass is given anything close to equal billing as clay.

No M1000, two 500s that conflict, and one Slam.

Whereas clay has multiple M1000s that can be played as a well-spaced warmup to RG.

Since you bring up Nadal, yes, the schedule of the tour and the surface distribution has helped him immensely, as he simply plows through the Euro clay season, gets the #1 seed at RG every year, and cleans up until the indoor season starts.
 
Its definitely going to leave a mark for all of history

I think you just run with a 6 months ranking delay and realize that it was all just an epic disaster with no fix

No matter what you do someone is going to be screwed bad

Points wont really matter for another year and a half other than just keeping a holding pattern
 

topher

Professional
Whatever the reasons, one can't really argue that grass is given anything close to equal billing as clay.

No M1000, two 500s that conflict, and one Slam.

Whereas clay has multiple M1000s that can be played as a well-spaced warmup to RG.

Since you bring up Nadal, yes, the schedule of the tour and the surface distribution has helped him immensely, as he simply plows through the Euro clay season, gets the #1 seed at RG every year, and cleans up until the indoor season starts.
I've never said grass gets equal billing, so you're arguing with the wind on that one.

The tour distribution has helped those who help themselves, the Big 3 all included. I'm not surprised on your feelings, your bias is pretty typical which is why you can expect the grass season expansion to never happen.

Federer fans who want to expand the grass season can never remove their bias and ally with Nadal fans who are okay with that, but not with removing some of the clay season to make it happen. If you can't remove your bias, then don't expect people to take your proposals of increasing surface diversity as anything more than self-serving hogwash.
 
I read the OP slowly, then quickly. It read like a dangerous idea on both occasions.

Truly unsafe at any speed.
I dont think its really that big a deal no matter what they do

The same three guys and you could even expand it for the last 10 years to the same 5-7 guys have eaten up well more than half the money in the sport of tennis.

Roger making well over 100 mil a year? Thats more than numbers 10-infinity on his own.

The only big problem in this sport is that the parity is nonexistant and the difference between #1 and #6 is wider than the grand canyon.

Doesnt matter if you just blind draw people into a tournament. We all know who will get exactly how far.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
I've never said grass gets equal billing, so you're arguing with the wind on that one.

The tour distribution has helped those who help themselves, the Big 3 all included. I'm not surprised on your feelings, your bias is pretty typical which is why you can expect the grass season expansion to never happen.

Federer fans who want to expand the grass season can never remove their bias and ally with Nadal fans who are okay with that, but not with removing some of the clay season to make it happen. If you can't remove your bias, then don't expect people to take your proposals of increasing surface diversity as anything more than self-serving hogwash.
I'd be fine with shortening the hard-court season, but if you don't think that the current schedule is extremely favorable to clay-court specialists and stacked against players who would do well on grass...not sure what to say.

Take Fedal out of the equation and go back 20 years, or forward ten. Clay specialists will be at an advantage, grass guys at a disadvantage.
 

reaper

Legend
If the ATP is driven by profitability, they'll find a way to get around it.

But if the "Big Three" maximization strategy hasn't yet been exposed as myopic, in some senses, dire realities for all involved may provide some illumination.

I'd like to see something serving a wider range of interests, personally.

Going to require significant financial restructuring, both in terms of contracts and prize money distribution.
I don't know if the ATP has too many options outside a "big 3 maximization strategy." It's hard to build a marketing strategy around players who never win...
 

topher

Professional
I'd be fine with shortening the hard-court season, but if you don't think that the current schedule is extremely favorable to clay-court specialists and stacked against players who would do well on grass...not sure what to say.

Take Fedal out of the equation and go back 20 years, or forward ten. Clay specialists will be at an advantage, grass guys at a disadvantage.
Compared to pure grass specialists, I'd agree, but there's not really many of those around. Most of the tour is hardcourt specialists nowadays, so grass court specialist advocates saying they want a bite out of the clay season is kind of like the guy with the penny saying he wants a piece of my 2 bucks, meanwhile hardcourt players are sitting pretty with a couple hundred bucks. Its a twisted perspective.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
Compared to pure grass specialists, I'd agree, but there's not really many of those around. Most of the tour is hardcourt specialists nowadays, so grass court specialist advocates saying they want a bite out of the clay season is kind of like the guy with the penny saying he wants a piece of my 2 bucks, meanwhile hardcourt players are sitting pretty with a couple hundred bucks. Its a twisted perspective.
The most logical solution is to do away with grass, entirely.
 
I don't know if the ATP has too many options outside a "big 3 maximization strategy." It's hard to build a marketing strategy around players who never win...
Yeah, there's gotta be a contingency plan.

The youngest of the lot is in his mid-30s.

Feel like there's more to be gained than lost here.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
The writing's been on the wall for some time now; there's no approaching the bar set by Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. They wanted Mt. GOATmore, and they got it.

What will they do to further interest in a watered-down version of that?

Going to have to be repackaged.
You really have glanced on a huge problem which is the handing of the torch to a next generation. I don't think Borg dropping off the face of the earth or McEnroe's game going belly up after 1984 were really helpful. Even Lendl kind of went the way of the dodo bird with his grass infatuation just as Agassi, Sampras, et al were coming on. Fed fans pine for the torch being handed off from Agassi/Sampras, but hardly at all.

Now we have a gap in play with a unique opportunity to hand off the reigns while the Big 3 still have excellent form; The Diamond Age. So really for basically seven months (one year for Fed) we are blind:
1. Will the Big3 ever find their best form with a short warm up period before 2020 US Open/RG
2. Will a budding slam finalist like Medvedev have a ghost of a chance to play into the great form that almost got him the US Open?
3. If Thiem sweeps the 2020 US Open/RG what will we say then if that ends the era?:cry:

I'm not sure what you mean by reset, thinking from the title you were talking about rankings, but you appear to have a much grander vision and I'm reading.;)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
The problem with this will always be Wimbledon being unwilling to be pushed back (despite clear ability in weather). And going the other way and cutting out clay portions of the calendar to expand grass make zero sense in maintaining surface diversity in an already hardcourt heavy sport.

On another note: You'd also completely lose the aura of the channel slam by making it much easier if you give grass a true separate warmup season.
The sport is still digesting an extra week of grass court tennis the last few years (a welcome move), but short of getting another major to go back to grass I see little hope for your plan. Auz Open's stature has risen greatly since they went to hard courts and that is the only hope. No way US Open will change with grass courts almost nonexistant these days.
 
You really have glanced on a huge problem which is the handing of the torch to a next generation. I don't think Borg dropping off the face of the earth or McEnroe's game going belly up after 1984 were really helpful. Even Lendl kind of went the way of the dodo bird with his grass infatuation just as Agassi, Sampras, et al were coming on. Fed fans pine for the torch being handed off from Agassi/Sampras, but hardly at all.

Now we have a gap in play with a unique opportunity to hand off the reigns while the Big 3 still have excellent form; The Diamond Age. So really for basically seven months (one year for Fed) we are blind:
1. Will the Big3 ever find their best form with a short warm up period before 2020 US Open/RG
2. Will a budding slam finalist like Medvedev have a ghost of a chance to play into the great form that almost got him the US Open?
3. If Thiem sweeps the 2020 US Open/RG what will we say then if that ends the era?:cry:

I'm not sure what you mean by reset, thinking from the title you were talking about rankings, but you appear to have a much grander vision and I'm reading.;)
Right on.

Yeah, the news gets crazier by the day.

The arrangement we have now is not working, and it's not sustainable anyway. Some folks got rich as kings (handful of players, some execs, etc.), but there's a tomorrow to think of.

And none of it is isolated from the shifting sports currents, to say nothing of a planet in crisis.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Right on.

Yeah, the news gets crazier by the day.

The arrangement we have now is not working, and it's not sustainable anyway. Some folks got rich as kings (handful of players, some execs, etc.), but there's a tomorrow to think of.

And none of it is isolated from the shifting sports currents, to say nothing of a planet in crisis.
Its been obvious the changing of court speeds by all the tournaments to woo the Big 3 for years now.:sneaky: So yes tennis in its greed has been doing that (and it does make sense as you are always trying to build up tournaments to greater heights.)

I'm not sure how you reset. We are resetting the schedule this year and maybe next. Justice in a sort of way that European tennis is taking over the schedule from the Asian swing with its many Chinese touraments this Fall, but by that time in 2021 we better have a vaccine or we'll have far worse problems to deal with.:sick: Asia will want the tour back.

The backbone of the tour are its tournaments (and biggest players) so you can tinker with the schedule and now is the time to do it, but I don't think an achievable new schedule offers the opportunity for a reset in the terms you wish.

Right now tennis has a very unique opportunity to help lead the sporting community out of this crisis given its unique nature in prevent spread of the pandemic and its ability to handle even a loss of 50% of the players due to pandemic considerations. Golf is the only other popular sport that has this kind of invulnerable nature. Team sports you lose whole teams or enough players and your whole league is toast.

So I think a reset needs to take hold of this opportunity to expand the sport, and expand it with the Big 3 leading the way.
 
Its been obvious the changing of court speeds by all the tournaments to woo the Big 3 for years now.:sneaky: So yes tennis in its greed has been doing that (and it does make sense as you are always trying to build up tournaments to greater heights.)

I'm not sure how you reset. We are resetting the schedule this year and maybe next. Justice in a sort of way that European tennis is taking over the schedule from the Asian swing with its many Chinese touraments this Fall, but by that time in 2021 we better have a vaccine or we'll have far worse problems to deal with.:sick: Asia will want the tour back.

The backbone of the tour are its tournaments (and biggest players) so you can tinker with the schedule and now is the time to do it, but I don't think an achievable new schedule offers the opportunity for a reset in the terms you wish.

Right now tennis has a very unique opportunity to help lead the sporting community out of this crisis given its unique nature in prevent spread of the pandemic and its ability to handle even a loss of 50% of the players due to pandemic considerations. Golf is the only other popular sport that has this kind of invulnerable nature. Team sports you lose whole teams or enough players and your whole league is toast.

So I think a reset needs to take hold of this opportunity to expand the sport, and expand it with the Big 3 leading the way.
Agreed on the homogenization bugaboo; the issues that would arise from that have been pretty apparent for some time.

I guess they decided to make hay by leveraging every ounce of manufactured rivalries at the top, etc. But to continue milking that after like 10-15 years? That bubble was never gonna burst. :rolleyes:

By "reset," I'm referring to a wholesale restructuring. The obsession with a top-heavy rotation doesn't do anything for incentivizing more fundamental growth.

This year is a wash. They need to look to the future with a plan that is less "all-in" and more "hedge."

The choice is simple, IMO:

A) Carry on pushing for short-term gains through relentless profiteering.​
-or-​
B) Move to lay the groundwork for a product that is less reliant on elaborate half-truths.​
 
Right on.

Yeah, the news gets crazier by the day.

The arrangement we have now is not working, and it's not sustainable anyway. Some folks got rich as kings (handful of players, some execs, etc.), but there's a tomorrow to think of.

And none of it is isolated from the shifting sports currents, to say nothing of a planet in crisis.

We get to look forward to Zverev and Coric types

A five dollar bill is overpaying them

Someone has to step up and take the biggest vacuum in sports

If you are just of average personality and average level of professional play you can make yacht owning money

These guys are total duds right now
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Agreed on the homogenization bugaboo; the issues that would arise from that have been pretty apparent for some time.

I guess they decided to make hay by leveraging every ounce of manufactured rivalries at the top, etc. But to continue milking that after like 10-15 years? That bubble was never gonna burst. :rolleyes:

By "reset," I'm referring to a wholesale restructuring. The obsession with a top-heavy rotation doesn't do anything for incentivizing more fundamental growth.

This year is a wash. They need to look to the future with a plan that is less "all-in" and more "hedge."

The choice is simple, IMO:

A) Carry on pushing for short-term gains through relentless profiteering.​
-or-​
B) Move to lay the groundwork for a product that is less reliant on elaborate half-truths.​
Elaborate half-truths.:unsure: I think by profiteering you mean for short term gains you feel the tour is hurting itself in the long run with the inevitable vacuum for fans. Its an issue and I'd definitely claim the US Open of back tracking after 2018 surface change which hurt Nadal and probably helped Thiem and maybe even Djokovic who got to hoover up the trophy in the final. If you're going to do something for a good reason (which they had) stick to it, instead I'd view the change in 2019 as pure short term profiteering. If the tournamanets cared about the long run they wouldn't keep changing the court conditions over and over again. The word fraudulent comes to mind.:sneaky: But again, Fed is money which is success for the tour and events. I'm not sold on the short term hurting the long term as greater ratings boost the sport and those higher ratings in themselves will only help future years. Of course undercutting the rest of the tour well that's going to hurt at some point, but even as one not too happy about all of this, well the jury is still out. So that was A even though I started with B.

Elaborate half-truths means that some of the Big 3 victories/success have been at the expense of the rest of the players. (Another example comes to mind where RG lackies extended the Thiem/Djoko SF clash over three days in the mad hope for a Djokodal final, but instead hurt Thiem's chances by denying him a further day off and allowing Djokovic to extend the match deeper.) So you are saying its time to build a product for the newer generation of players? That not bad.:p
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
It's not a system that you can reset.

It's a complicated set of agreements and contracts that stretch into the future.

Although it's amusing to re-work the tour starting with a blank sheet, it's just an intellectual exercise.

Players come and go, and eras have different shapes, so the big 3 era is not the end of any road. They'll just promote what comes.
 
It's not a system that you can reset.

It's a complicated set of agreements and contracts that stretch into the future.

Although it's amusing to re-work the tour starting with a blank sheet, it's just an intellectual exercise.
"Intellectual exercise" works. In the context of the usual discourse here...? :sneaky:

Little discussed here translates to action.

But also... pandemic.

Usual rules don't apply anymore.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
We get to look forward to Zverev and Coric types

A five dollar bill is overpaying them

Someone has to step up and take the biggest vacuum in sports

If you are just of average personality and average level of professional play you can make yacht owning money

These guys are total duds right now
More half-truthes?:eek:

Coric is hardly worth discussion as another injury prone player like Kyrgios and one with far less talent. Dangerous player as Fed knows, but never was the future of the game.

Fed (and I) will demur on Zverev. Sure his game is not Big 3 material and wow he's just clowning away glory the last few years with these wus kick 2nd serves that now he can't even get into the court.
But as someone for many to cheer against well Zedrot just total box office.

Thiem I'll grant you has been kind of a dud for interviews and stuff, but he is slowly coming out of his shell and improving.

I actually think there are quite a few players (Thiem included) who are Murray level talent or above in the game right now. I'm sure half of them will dissappoint (FAA keeps getting injured:rolleyes:), but many of them will pay off. If you are looking for Big 3 replacements you'll be waiting a long, long time. The Big3 also had things come there way with conditions/technology which is definitely not happening right now. If you remove the Big 3 from the equation, this is easily the most talented group of players the tour has ever seen. With perhaps the worst group coming just before them with Cilic/Delpo barely keeping their heads above water with one masters and one slam. Really Delpo has been the only other decent talent on tour basically until Thiem. That is a gulf of time where the Big 3/4/5 was just allowed to hoover up everything with even more ease. Soderling, Roddick, Davydenko, are some of the best of the rest (and Roddick well above these two), but no there is just a ton of talent on the tour right now. With the Big3 its the best tennis we've had in a long, long time.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
It's not a system that you can reset.

It's a complicated set of agreements and contracts that stretch into the future.

Although it's amusing to re-work the tour starting with a blank sheet, it's just an intellectual exercise.

Players come and go, and eras have different shapes, so the big 3 era is not the end of any road. They'll just promote what comes.
Why Bartleby how positively mercantile of you.:D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Crises like pandemics don't result in rethinks. They usually result in just getting things back running. This is the case here at all levels, not just tennis.

"Intellectual exercise" works. In the context of the usual discourse here...? :sneaky:

Little discussed here translates to action.

But also... pandemic.

Usual rules don't apply anymore.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
"Intellectual exercise" works. In the context of the usual discourse here...? :sneaky:

Little discussed here translates to action.

But also... pandemic.

Usual rules don't apply anymore.
100%. This is a unique opportunity for tennis with time even to think about it for the powers that be. This is important despite reactionaries like @Bartleby ;)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I'm more realistic than most on this board.

Without the big 3 someone else will win slams. And they'll get promoted.

People will indeed look wistfully back to the great era before they return glued to their screens.

Why Bartleby how positively mercantile of you.:D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You have all these tournaments with contracts, which lost a lot of money due to the pandemic, and you want to pay them to disrupt their contract with what money?

100%. This is a unique opportunity for tennis with time even to think about it for the powers that be. This is important despite reactionaries like @Bartleby ;)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I'm more realistic than most on this board.

Without the big 3 someone else will win slams. And they'll get promoted.

People will indeed look wistfully back to the great era before they return glued to their screens.
I'm glad somehow that we are only losing one major this year because this disruption in many ways has come at precisely the wrong time for the Diamond Age. We may come back to play and find the transition is already over and the storied generatinal clashes from the missing season gone for good with age quickly becoming an excuse. We should all fear this potential abrupt transition even though I'd love to see it.:cool:
 
Crises like pandemics don't result in rethinks. They usually result in just getting things back running. This is the case here at all levels, not just tennis.
How many have you lived through? :unsure:

Can't apply a historical precedent to something that has never hit the Tour before.

It's approaching "perfect storm" territory. And with the cash cows on their last legs anyway, why not try a new approach?

Further, it is bordering on catastrophic for this entire enterprise. And continuing to tempt fate is just digging a deeper hole.

In the immediate future, it goes way beyond recouping lost monies.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
WWI created a 'perfect storm'; the Spanish flu not so much.

What would change the Tour is the emergence of a competitor to its monopoly control of labour.

How many have you lived through? :unsure:

Can't apply a historical precedent to something that has never hit the Tour before.

It's approaching "perfect storm" territory. And with the cash cows on their last legs anyway, why not try a new approach?

Further, it is bordering on catastrophic for this entire enterprise. And continuing to tempt fate is just digging a deeper hole.

In the immediate future, it goes way beyond recouping lost monies.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
You have all these tournaments with contracts, which lost a lot of money due to the pandemic, and you want to pay them to disrupt their contract with what money?
You do have a point here and I'm not totally on board with the more idealistic goals of this thread for equality for players or something. At this point the tour could really see a noticeable drop in depth (players outside the top 50 even) if the tour does not make it attractive for them to recover their careers. Still I don't see how this laudible goal does anything for resetting the tour.

Newer, better, more interesting, more money, more depth, more attendance, more, more, more is what a reset needs to do. Tennis is in a unique spot to radically increase its popularity. Not so sure same old, same old takes full advantage of this opening. So I am with the spirit of this thread.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
WWI created a 'perfect storm'; the Spanish flu not so much.

What would change the Tour is the emergence of a competitor to its monopoly control of labour.
And we are seeing that total freedom right now as the ATP is not reopening any time soon. What tennis we have now may be that potential competitor. Think of Laver Cup and its success. This is a time for possibilities and reflection. Literally as we write we may be influencing the upcoming ReOpen events. This is a unique opportunity for the tennis masses to break the control of the old guard with new ideas. Come on B!:p
 
What would change the Tour is the emergence of a competitor to its monopoly control of labour.
Now that I can get on board with.

Absolutely. I had hope that Laver Cup was merely a precursor to something of the sort. Still see Federer as more than capable of heading a "rival" tour.

On the other hand, whotf is steering the ship? To cite one example, the NBA has continually knocked it out of the park for more than 30 years now. David Stern was omnipresent. His successor is similarly everywhere, and about as transparent as it gets in this business.

The top brass of this operation are way too clandestine.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The tour is like a circus that travels the world touching down here and there.

The only problem with a rival emerging is that they may cherry-pick opportunities based on the key centres.

Look at the revamped Davis Cup, which completely changed that event, and not for the better.

My prediction would be that this novelty will fall over due to the pandemic, and the Davis Cup will return to its roots.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Of course. It would still need to be done in stages (3-5 years), but now would be the time to plan it, and next year would be the main overhaul.
I disagree with this completely. Tennis needs a radial restructure, a massive band aid tear rather than slow tinkering.

The time is now. There is no Wimbledon 2020 and there won't be a USO 2020. The whole year is a wash for Masters, 500s, 250s, etc. I'd say FO is 50:50 and the person who won AO is now a complete disgrace to the sport, so you could easily call 2020 the year of the ATP Cup and start 2021 with a completely revamped tour. The world is hungry for tennis and NOW is when spectators will accept change, as long as they get some tennis.

The problem is that the very people who created and profited from the current mess are the ones who would need to change it .. and there's zero chance of that happening.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with this completely. Tennis needs a radial restructure, a massive band aid tear rather than slow tinkering.

The time is now. There is no Wimbledon 2020 and there won't be a USO 2020. The whole year is a wash for Masters, 500s, 250s, etc. I'd say FO is 50:50 and the person who won AO is now a complete disgrace to the sport, so you could easily call 2020 the year of the ATP Cup and start 2021 with a completely revamped tour. The world is hungry for tennis is NOW is when spectators will accept change, as long as they get some tennis.

The problem is that the very people who created and profited from the current mess are the ones who would need to change it .. and there's zero chance of that happening.
Hey I would be on that train, but I was told that it was not possible due to contracts and such. But yes, I agree.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Tennis is a very 'mature sport' that is probably in slow decline.

Football codes here are trying to expand into the women's game, and not just for idealistic reasons. Tennis has been there and done that.

And people prefer team sports, especially football codes, so I can't see much change in tennis' fortunes.

I don't even see people here getting much beyond 'the big 3 are over' and 'it's time for a revamp' and 'the pandemic is a good opportunity'.
 
Tennis is a very 'mature sport' that is probably in slow decline.

Football codes here are trying to expand into the women's game, and not just for idealistic reasons. Tennis has been there and done that.

And people prefer team sports, especially football codes, so I can't see much change in tennis' fortunes.

I don't even see people here getting much beyond 'the big 3 are over' and 'it's time for a revamp' and 'the pandemic is a good opportunity'.
A working model can be hammered out. Have little doubt of that.

But this is an idea space, right? Brainstorming, essentially.

You interested in crafting a formalized proposal? IMO, getting an informal conversation going is almost more interesting.

Largely because of some of the things that simply will not change. Because of bureaucratic red tape. It's early days yet.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Hey I would be on that train, but I was told that it was not possible due to contracts and such. But yes, I agree.
Those contracts didn't stand the test of Covid-19, tear them up while tearing off that band aid.

I'll get the ball rolling .. 2021 starts with a month long quarantine in Australia, then expanded ATP Cup played over a month rather than 2 weeks.

And a complete ban on ball kids touching any towel.
 
Top