Would a total Tour "reset" make sense?

Meles

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.
I really, really enjoyed the Davis Cup Finals despite the many problems. That was the most Davis Cup tennis I've watched in a long, long time. ATP Cup Finals also were a big improvement over the previous events at that time.

I had no idea you were such a reactionary.:D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You'd be wrong about that. I'm merely taking into account the real-world appetite for change.

Even without the pandemic, these threads recommending a total re-set pop up very often.

No one has proposed anything interesting in the past, and no one is doing it here.

I really, really enjoyed the Davis Cup Finals despite the many problems. That was the most Davis Cup tennis I've watched in a long, long time. ATP Cup Finals also were a big improvement over the previous events at that time.

I had no idea you were such a reactionary.:D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
My re-set for the tour would go something like this:

1. Four grand slams a year

2. Eight ATP grand slam look-alikes a year

3. A twelve slam calendar like a F1 Grand Prix Calendar

4. An F2 calendar revolving around a global team competition

All this is completely off the top of my head, but the reality is that slams are more interesting than anything else, but we only get four!
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
My prediction is that change will come in a bad way with various entrepreneurs trying to cherry-pick elements of the tour.

We already have two recent examples of this.
I'm not sure what you mean by cherry picking? (Just having the best players at your event I presume.) For Covid I think this is necessary and Adria tour was trying to have a spectrum of players, but you do have to have those crowd pleasers to fill the stands. For these first steps its just too much to have qualifiers, etc. We are going to be cherry picking until we have a vaccine out of necessity. The tour will come in later and once we have a vaccine will be able to do more full qualifiers. Perhaps the qualifier spots for Madrid and Rome should be filled by some other system in the meantime? (Not sure what they plan to do.)

Not that I think a simple rules tinkering is in order, but wanted to discuss what I've seen from these events.
1. Adria tour. They did fast four in three set format so they could do matches for each player in a day and restrict the event to a shorter period of time with more play on the weekend. I'd say more play on the weekend is a good thing for fans attending tournaments. Right now its the reverse and only the main courts are used on the weekend. So the goal of more weekend play is something positive from Adria tour.

2. UTS coaching- this brought coaching more to the fore and I liked the headset timeout. If a player was absolutely realing the coach timeout could just give them some time to reset. The coaching is always very interesting and allows us to see more of the players personalities which is all very good. Another thing they did at the end of quarters were one minute interviews with players by the commentators. This again I see as another way for fans to connect and just more interesting insight into the game. Traditionalists hate coaching, but there is little doubt that it also increases the quality of the product on display.

3. Battle of the Brits scoring- I think doing two traditional sets and then a super breaker if needed for the final set is just an uninventive loser. A lot of matches for the players in the week so shorter was good. Frankly the Milan format with five fast four sets and super breaker if 3 all in the 5th far better than this abomination that bows to tradition a bit.

4. Battle of the Brits covid measures - they used electronic lines calling which is another great measure to reduce personel. (UTS did this as well.) And I thought that allowing the coach or team members to sit in the corners of the court worked well as they wore plastic gloves so they hopefully don't infect the opposing player and it was just helpful for controlling the balls. Net cords on serve and player returns of out first serves into net had to be dealt with by players, but I could see two members from each team in the corners. Coaching was not allowed and it would be even more obvious in this setup. The players and team are kind of a covid unit so just a great choice to have them on court. The US Open should take note for this year and perhaps this is some kind of introduction to the idea of coaching in the long run for fans.

5. UTS quarter scoring - kind of sort of like every quarter was an elongated tiebreaker. THE chief asset of the best of five set format at majors is its much, much more likely for the top players to prevail in a given match so you generally have the best players at the end of a major more so than lets say a Masters 1000. Best of three scoring is not as good (not even close). The Milan five set format is close to best of three and frankly with a lot more action to my eyes, but that is just a sideshow. THE most important thing with any change is that it comes very close or betters the existing scoring format standards. Frankly tennis has long been in need in a way to shorten matches for the health of the players, but we want the better playes winning consistently like in a slam with any change. So the ideal would be shorter matches where the best players are more likely to come through. That makes for a better product to watch. Did UTS scoring do this? There is potential. They did 4 quarters that were just ten minutes long. In my mind anything goes that gives us the best players coming through with less Russian roulette. One of the enduring principles of tennis is that you must win by two and that probably should stay at least as much as possible, but no ad scoring with returner choice I think would allow for more breaks of serve which I definitely think the game needs. UTS scoring was all like tiebreakers that went to around 15 all. I liked the faster pace of play and then the bigger breaks at the end of each quarter were a natural for player interaction. As a fan at an event I'm not sure I'd be happy leaving the court and then having to wait for a whole quarter to get back to my seat. In Milan they allowed the fans to move around, but they restricted seating behind the courts so it was higher up. It did not hurt play at all to my eyes to have fans moving about.

6. UTS cards - without the normal eb and flow of service games I actually started to enjoy these. Most players elected to steal two serves from the other player though it seemed like it really just gave them two more serves. With the quarter system that was a way for a player to comeback from a building deficit. Thiem liked to use a card where you took away the players first serve which was very interesting in use. All the players elected to have the triple point card for a winner and frankly that added to much of a Russain Roulette aspect to things and benefits big servers tremendously (so NO THANK YOU), but it did add pressure to the players. Frankly I think the three point card is hurting the quality of play, but it did reallly up the ante with players jumping to a lead, etc. Maybe two point cards and more of them might have been a better balance. With fans and the stands these cards may add to the confusion especially with outside courts where a full array of technology might lead to cut corners.

7. UTS fake fans - frankly I'd like to see a more gladatorial feel to tennis. Maybe with 5G and with Covid we could experiment with apps that would allow fans to interact from a far with players. People who got out of line would be booted and their seat taken all electronically. We do have sound technology in the form of Auro, Atmos, and DTS-X that is "object oriented" where up to 100 speakers in a theater(stadium) could be used to combine the input from fans in their seats. Speed would be of the essence for this sytem with broadcasting delays virtually eliminated. This is probably not possible, but maybe between games could work and perhaps fans give some simple programming whether they cheer or boo player x in certain circumstances. App on the phone.

8. Electronic line calling - we are going to see a lot of it and I believe it enhances quality of play since players don't go crazy when wronged by human judge or linesperson. When we come back with a vaccine, we probably will have a shortage in officials since new ones are not being trained/groomed by the system currently. Tennis is going to need to invest more in this pronto and hopefully it will be brought more into the mix with this kick start.


More observations than answers, but its really time to start breaking the mold and trying things during this pandemic.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
You'd be wrong about that. I'm merely taking into account the real-world appetite for change.

Even without the pandemic, these threads recommending a total re-set pop up very often.

No one has proposed anything interesting in the past, and no one is doing it here.
Your being a reactionary to being called a reactionary; it just appears to be in your nature.;)

See my post above to wet your appetite or at least get a few brain cells functioning.:-D
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
1. Australia

2. Indian Wells

3. Miami


4. Madrid

5. Rome

6. Paris


7. Queens

8. Wimbledon


9. Montreal

10. New York

11. Tokyo

12. Shanghai

That looks like a good calendar depending on who wants to buy the events. You could have lead-up events, as well as others. But the slams would be the thing.

This would also partly solve the player payment problem as there would be 12 slam first round payments a year and not just 4. Their income would be trippled.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I'm no longer sure you know the meaning of the term.

Your being a reactionary to being called a reactionary; it just appears to be in your nature.;)

See my post above to wet your appetite or at least get a few brain cells functioning.:-D
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
My re-set for the tour would go something like this:

1. Four grand slams a year

2. Eight ATP grand slam look-alikes a year

3. A twelve slam calendar like a F1 Grand Prix Calendar

4. An F2 calendar revolving around a global team competition

All this is completely off the top of my head, but the reality is that slams are more interesting than anything else, but we only get four!
Sometimes the end of slams are heaven, but as a whole they are not great to watch. I'll take Madrid and Rome back to back over RG for example. I watch more than most, but last week of slam really gets to be snoozeville with matches every other day. Its just awful when the draw gets torn up for various reasons at a slam. Also the first round is very touch and go and luck of the draw at a slam. Sometimes the huge amount of matches is great, but at other times just luck of the draw sometimes just comes up with nothing. By round 2 usually more on the table. The matches are so long of course that we do have to set aside time in our lives for those slam weeks to watch a lot of tennis. With regular tour often you get three finals on Sunday, six SFs on Saturday; with slam you just get final these days and if its a less alluring one well all your eggs just went rotten in your basket.;)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
1. Australia

2. Indian Wells

3. Miami


4. Madrid

5. Rome

6. Paris


7. Queens

8. Wimbledon


9. Montreal

10. New York

11. Tokyo

12. Shanghai

That looks like a good calendar depending on who wants to buy the events.
I don't think the OP really was interested in completely reordering the calendar and I doubt much of that happens post vaccine.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Maybe we could keep some of them as well. Eight slams and eight Masters would solve your problem.

Sometimes the end of slams are heaven, but as a whole they are not great to watch. I'll take Madrid and Rome back to back over RG for example. I watch more than most, but last week of slam really gets to be snoozeville with matches every other day. Its just awful when the draw gets torn up for various reasons at a slam. Also the first round is very touch and go and luck of the draw at a slam. Sometimes the huge amount of matches is great, but at other times just luck of the draw sometimes just comes up with nothing. By round 2 usually more on the table. The matches are so long of course that we do have to set aside time in our lives for those slam weeks to watch a lot of tennis. With regular tour often you get three finals on Sunday, six SFs on Saturday; with slam you just get final these days and if its a less alluring one well all your eggs just went rotten in your basket.;)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
It's all imaginary so you might as well have a complete re-set.
Fair enough, but we've had so many calendar reorganizing threads that well I'm just concerned thats where this one will end up with all the usual suspects.:sneaky: Present company excepted.;)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
There is no reform agenda out there to be opposed. Just ramblings on the internet. All that is fine, of course, but the slams have a monopoly and the ATP has its structure.

As I said above, cherry-picking might be a result not desired by anyone.

The UTS version of cherry-picking might result in a new format that might serve as an interesting variation of the traditional game, but it would never replace the latter ... hopefully.

Reactionary - opposing tennis liberalization or reform.

Fits you like a glove.;)
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Maybe we could keep some of them as well. Eight slams and eight Masters would solve your problem.
Slams are quite democratic. A masters is supposed to be a week long slam. The problem with masters is the field is so small for many of them so they exclude so many players, often players in better form than all but the top, top players. I like more slams, but those are big! I guess its a no brainer to vault Indian Wells up to slam status with a full 128 player field? I despise the first round at IW with the 32 seeds have a bye.:mad:

I also think Italy with is free broadcasting of tennis is a burgeoning market so lets make Rome another? Replace these with Masters 1000 in Acapulco with a bigger field? (great, great tournament) Move Monte Carlo too full Masters Events (required) then maybe a clay masters in South America to cap that swing? (maybe not)

You can't build something from nothing. Italian Tennis Federation I think would cough up a larger stadium for Slam status. Acapulco is ready and waiting for bigger times. Indian Wells has the factilities. I think with Zverev heading German tennis Hamburg ready to replace Rome.

Frankly the Real Slam in Cincinnati could go next level as well. Problem is fitting it all in the schedule. If we have some weaker tournaments (my lord that one in Turkey is laying an egg) well then consolidate the schedule to make room for these grander events.

Revolutionary stuff Bartleby.:whistle:
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I've quoted @Third Serve because I've borrowed heavily from his great post last year.

As much as people on here moaned and whinged about national team tennis not being a thing, the ATP Cup was huge and even the molested Davis Cup got more interest than the old one. I think the tour should expand on that (in kind of a world cup of soccer format), then have a clear 4 months in Europe (2 months slow, 2 months fast) and 3 months in America, rather than hopping all over the place. In the short term, that will also help with quarantine.

With the clear differentiation of regional swings, there should also be clear surface differentiation. Yes, I can dream.

January: ATP/Davis Cup Qualifiers
--
February: ATP/Davis Cup Finals
--
March: AO -- Grand Slam #1
--
April: Monte-Carlo -- Masters 1000 #1
April: Rome -- Masters 1000 #2
--
May: French Open -- Grand Slam #2
--
June: Halle -- Masters 1000 #3
June: Queens' Club -- Masters 1000 #4
--
July: Wimbledon -- Grand Slam #3
--
August: Canada -- Masters 1000 #5
August: Cincinnati -- Masters 1000 #6
--
September: Indian Wells -- Masters 1000 #7
September: Miami -- Masters 1000 #8
--
October: US Open -- Grand Slam #4
--
November: ATP World Tour Finals
--
December: ATP/Davis Cup Pre-Qualifiers
Of course there are things you could pick at, nothing is perfect .. but that's better than what we see now.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
With only four slams and no 250 and no 500 events, the tour will be more restricted to a small elite of players than ever.

I've quoted @Third Serve because I've borrowed heavily from his great post last year.

As much as people on here moaned and whinged about national team tennis not being a thing, the ATP Cup was huge and even the molested Davis Cup got more interest than the old one. I think the tour should expand on that (in kind of a world cup of soccer format), then have a clear 4 months in Europe (2 months slow, 2 months fast) and 3 months in America, rather than hopping all over the place. In the short term, that will also help with quarantine.

With the clear differentiation of regional swings, there should also be clear surface differentiation. Yes, I can dream.



Of course there are things you could pick at, nothing is perfect .. but that's better than what we see now.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
I've quoted @Third Serve because I've borrowed heavily from his great post last year.

As much as people on here moaned and whinged about national team tennis not being a thing, the ATP Cup was huge and even the molested Davis Cup got more interest than the old one. I think the tour should expand on that (in kind of a world cup of soccer format), then have a clear 4 months in Europe (2 months slow, 2 months fast) and 3 months in America, rather than hopping all over the place. In the short term, that will also help with quarantine.

With the clear differentiation of regional swings, there should also be clear surface differentiation. Yes, I can dream.



Of course there are things you could pick at, nothing is perfect .. but that's better than what we see now.
1) not enough clay.
2) can make some room by dumping Davis cup entirely. Replace with results of the top 3-5 players from each nation at the 4 slams. The top 4 nations have a 4 team playoff at the ATP finals. Adds a national interest angle to the slams
 

Fedinkum

Legend
I really, really enjoyed the Davis Cup Finals despite the many problems. That was the most Davis Cup tennis I've watched in a long, long time. ATP Cup Finals also were a big improvement over the previous events at that time.

I had no idea you were such a reactionary.:D
I like the way they have been jazzing up the ATP final as an entertainment event.

Davis Cup is a dinosaur destined to be extinct amongst main stream popularity.

Those fast 4 format and Ultimate Tennis are rubbish, temporary bandits that will not draw a significant amount of new fans but kill off the current loyal ones.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
1) not enough clay.
2) can make some room by dumping Davis cup entirely. Replace with results of the top 3-5 players from each nation at the 4 slams. The top 4 nations have a 4 team playoff at the ATP finals. Adds a national interest angle to the slams
1) A quarter of slams and M1000s would still be clay, which is an appropriate balance. Plus there would still be lots of 250 level clay tournies throughout the year for people like Garin to vulture while they dodge everything else. I'd see someone like that playing clay in Europe rather than doing the grass swing, then warming up for the USO on clay in South America rather than going to Canada. You could watch clay all year, but you allocate the big ones and then let the smalls fill in the gaps.

2) I didn't explain my ATP/Davis Cup combination. I agree that there should be only one, call it whatever you like. A few countries would go straight through to the finals based on previous year, most would have to qualify. A few spots would be up for grabs each year by prequalifying and these rounds should be heavily subsidised by the ATP for future development and expansion. Much better than the current Asian swing, etc.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I like the way they have been jazzing up the ATP final as an entertainment event.

Davis Cup is a dinosaur destined to be extinct amongst main stream popularity.

Those fast 4 format and Ultimate Tennis are rubbish, temporary bandits that will not draw a significant amount of new fans but kill off the current loyal ones.
You have to have established tournaments or really big names. Fed's Laver Cup was an instant success, but loaded with many of the top players each year.

I have no problem with the current experimentation because the events catering to the loyal fans are not back in business given their nature and location. Beggars can't be choosers Fedinkum.;)

If Davis Cup is going extinct it nearly follows that conventional tennis will meet a similar fate.

I watched another enjoyable UTF match with a nice level of play. It just makes the game far more interesting rather than the lightweight retread at the Battle of the Brits. The current format is very stale. One can go through entire sets that can often be quite boring and time consuming.

One thing really, really wrong with the new formats is a logistical issue. If you schedule players with somewhat shorter matches every day then you are really impacted by weather delays with two matches in a day for the affected players almost guaranteed. For outdoor events you need days off in the schedule for players just so they aren't frequently having to play two matches in a day.

Frankly I'm not inclined to change majors much unless a shorter format that has close to the same rater of favoring the higher ranked/better play. The ATP needs to seize this opportunity for innovation and perhaps year end events and/or beginning events like ATP Cup are a natural initial candidate for change.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
You have to have established tournaments or really big names. Fed's Laver Cup was an instant success, but loaded with many of the top players each year.

I have no problem with the current experimentation because the events catering to the loyal fans are not back in business given their nature and location. Beggars can't be choosers Fedinkum.;)

If Davis Cup is going extinct it nearly follows that conventional tennis will meet a similar fate.

I watched another enjoyable UTF match with a nice level of play. It just makes the game far more interesting rather than the lightweight retread at the Battle of the Brits. The current format is very stale. One can go through entire sets that can often be quite boring and time consuming.

One thing really, really wrong with the new formats is a logistical issue. If you schedule players with somewhat shorter matches every day then you are really impacted by weather delays with two matches in a day for the affected players almost guaranteed. For outdoor events you need days off in the schedule for players just so they aren't frequently having to play two matches in a day.

Frankly I'm not inclined to change majors much unless a shorter format that has close to the same rater of favoring the higher ranked/better play. The ATP needs to seize this opportunity for innovation and perhaps year end events and/or beginning events like ATP Cup are a natural initial candidate for change.
I agreed that ATP needs to seize the opportunity for innovation and I would say one innovation should be focusing on the model of telecasting events: how to improve public's access to official matches. They really should open up the vaults of matches on some sort of super servers. The current telecasting model of a few important matches are too narrow.
 
You can see in your own post that it's not that easy, you have 4 years for early, 3 for mid and 3 for late. 30-32 / 33-36 / 37-39 would at least be symmetrical (3-4-3 instead of 4-3-3).
There always has to be one grouping with 4 and the other two with 3. The one you suggested has the middle 30s mid date at 35.5 not 35 lol. It makes sense it's the first grouping because the mid one is set already around 35 as the mid point and then the last falls in place automatically. Also because 30 ends in a 0 it makes sense for that to be the grouping with 4 (1+2+3 with the extra 0). The symmetry argument (3-4-3 vs 4-3-3 ) doesn't really make sense to me lol

This is super geeky lol but if you look it up that's how they organize it typically .
 

anarosevoli

Rookie
There always has to be one grouping with 4 and the other two with 3. The one you suggested has the middle 30s mid date at 35.5 not 35 lol. It makes sense it's the first grouping because the mid one is set already around 35 as the mid point and then the last falls in place automatically. Also because 30 ends in a 0 it makes sense for that to be the grouping with 4 (1+2+3 with the extra 0). The symmetry argument (3-4-3 vs 4-3-3 ) doesn't really make sense to me lol

This is super geeky lol but if you look it up that's how they organize it typically .
I guess you meant 34.5 but that's also wrong. If you take ages 33, 34, 35, 36 the 35th birthday is exactly in the middle! You - like most others - try to calculate with a system from 0 to 9 pretending it was your used system from 1 to 10. It's just completely wrong, and thinking that in the correct system the middle would be 34.5 or 35.5 proves this! In the correct system (mine, with 33,34,35,36 as middle) the middle is exactly the 35th birthday! In YOUR system the middle is at 35.5! (34 to 36 = 34th birthday until 37th birthday, middle 35.5!).
 
I guess you meant 34.5 but that's also wrong. If you take ages 33, 34, 35, 36 the 35th birthday is exactly in the middle! You - like most others - try to calculate with a system from 0 to 9 pretending it was your used system from 1 to 10. It's just completely wrong, and thinking that in the correct system the middle would be 34.5 or 35.5 proves this! In the correct system (mine, with 33,34,35,36 as middle) the middle is exactly the 35th birthday! In YOUR system the middle is at 35.5! (34 to 36 = 34th birthday until 37th birthday, middle 35.5!).
Hmmm.... I think you are right!
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I agreed that ATP needs to seize the opportunity for innovation and I would say one innovation should be focusing on the model of telecasting events: how to improve public's access to official matches. They really should open up the vaults of matches on some sort of super servers. The current telecasting model of a few important matches are too narrow.
This is a huge opportunity to fill the vacuum left by other sports. ESPN is very gung ho about the US Open I hear. That is at least something, but not an expansion of coverage.

I find the Italian model fascinating. When faced with dropping attendance at the height of the Fedal area and beginning of the Big 4, they decided to invest in telecasting the sport for free across Italy (the entire season). Its been a tremendous success with more fans and players.

In the US Tennis Channel has hoovered up all the coverage and for decades its been very exclusive even for cable TV subscribers. Absolutely horrible model for the sport. Now is a time for change and you've hit upon one of the most critical areas where tennis has an opportunity.

(Note: Tennis Channel has had new ownership for years now that is try to get their company in more base packages.)
 

Ocean Drive

Hall of Fame
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?
You can't make a thread like this and not even define "reset".
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I've quoted @Third Serve because I've borrowed heavily from his great post last year.

As much as people on here moaned and whinged about national team tennis not being a thing, the ATP Cup was huge and even the molested Davis Cup got more interest than the old one. I think the tour should expand on that (in kind of a world cup of soccer format), then have a clear 4 months in Europe (2 months slow, 2 months fast) and 3 months in America, rather than hopping all over the place. In the short term, that will also help with quarantine.

With the clear differentiation of regional swings, there should also be clear surface differentiation. Yes, I can dream.



Of course there are things you could pick at, nothing is perfect .. but that's better than what we see now.
I'd love to see a combined Halle/Queens event where each represents half of the draw and the winners face off in a rotating final on Monday between the two sites. So 600 points for winning either basically and then another 400 points for the grand final. The winners of these events are not going to play the ATP 250s so there we have perhaps the grandest masters 1000 on grass. Probably cut down on byes to maybe 4 per event. Have two Masters 1000 back to back before Wimby or the same week is just not workable.

I see no reason for expansion of grass season until the current expanded season is being maximized. We could be there in a few years if the Majorca takes off.
 

Ocean Drive

Hall of Fame
Or can I? :unsure:

Perhaps we chuck ideas around and arrive at something by consensus?

Or not.

You posted here, so it's on your mind. What are your ideas?
A "tour reset" could mean a plethora of things.

What others seem to be referring to, from responses, is a complete rehash of organisation and rules. Logistically, a rehash can never work, so it's tomfoolery to even discuss it. A more plausible topic would be to discuss what amendments could be made to the current tour in the form of gradual implementations. Tennis, like any sport, stays afloat via corporate partnerships and stakeholders. Nobody is going to invest in such a reckless concept.
 
A "tour reset" could mean a plethora of things.

What others seem to be referring to, from responses, is a complete rehash of organisation and rules. Logistically, a rehash can never work, so it's tomfoolery to even discuss it. A more plausible topic would be to discuss what amendments could be made to the current tour in the form of gradual implementations. Tennis, like any sport, stays afloat via corporate partnerships and stakeholders. Nobody is going to invest in such a reckless concept.
A real progressive, eh?

A true visionary.

Good stuff. :)
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I'd love to see a combined Halle/Queens event where each represents half of the draw and the winners face off in a rotating final on Monday between the two sites. So 600 points for winning either basically and then another 400 points for the grand final. The winners of these events are not going to play the ATP 250s so there we have perhaps the grandest masters 1000 on grass. Probably cut down on byes to maybe 4 per event. Have two Masters 1000 back to back before Wimby or the same week is just not workable.

I see no reason for expansion of grass season until the current expanded season is being maximized. We could be there in a few years if the Majorca takes off.
I think you've made some interesting points, but Halle and Queens need to stand alone. Perhaps the real solution is for the ATP to not award points during a two month grass season on anything but grass. If they were custodians of tennis rather than just in it for short term profit, that's what they'd do. The dirt ballers could still not play on grass, that's fine .. but they won't be vulturing points somewhere else.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The ATP was born through the siezure of power from the previous custodians of tennis, who were doing almost nothing for the players or tennis in general.

This also leads one to suspect is that a re-set will come out of new initiatives/bodies/organisations/entrepreneurs rather than the ITF/Slams/ATP.

I think you've made some interesting points, but Halle and Queens need to stand alone. Perhaps the real solution is for the ATP to not award points during a two month grass season on anything but grass. If they were custodians of tennis rather than just in it for short term profit, that's what they'd do. The dirt ballers could still not play on grass, that's fine .. but they won't be vulturing points somewhere else.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
I don't see much wrong with current system. Some minor tweaks are more in line with what's needed rather than whole sale changes that could destroy the game.
Some changes worth considering,
1. AO later in year March.
2. IW & MI more time between.
3. Make IW 1,500 and increase field 128.
4. Leave Queens alone. It's got prestige maybe make it 750 as well as MC.
5. Drop Madrid to 500. Too many clay masters before FO.
6. ATP Cup or whatever it currently is closer to USO.
7. Something done to post USO, seems dead.
8. Give up trying to feed players ranked 90+. Unless under 21 they're really doing it for themselves and shouldn't live on the circuits funds. The main circuit is for 90 players with only Majors feeding more.
9. ATP free to watch matches. Tennis needs to be watched to grow, make past matches available for free to watch. Tourneys must make 1 centre court or show court match day available to view through ATP site after 48 hrs of play. Basically, the ATP should host a site free to watch enough old classics to get interest and few current matches on delay as taster.
10. Grow local tennis? How? No idea, but I'd be happier if less people watched but more played. AO is trying, they divert money into local events. I think poly hurts local tennis.
11. Love poly but it should go. ATP Tourneys natural gut only. Uncertain about club matches but it's problematic.

Simple rejig of a few Tourneys. Nothing earth shattering. Remove poly. Easier access to matches.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I think you've made some interesting points, but Halle and Queens need to stand alone. Perhaps the real solution is for the ATP to not award points during a two month grass season on anything but grass. If they were custodians of tennis rather than just in it for short term profit, that's what they'd do. The dirt ballers could still not play on grass, that's fine .. but they won't be vulturing points somewhere else.
Well this is ridiculous sentiment as the clay season has been decimated over the years including the Fall. There are no clay events between RG through Wimbledon. Stuttgart converted to grass in case you hadn't noticed.:rolleyes: There are challenger events of course and if you wish to wipe that out well I find your desired level of control disturbing.

Two month grass season.:-D ATP right now is struggling to fill the grass season with quality events. Do you at least have prospective facilities ready to have grass events?:sneaky: I'm not even sure that Halle or Queens have the capacity/fan base worthy of Masters 1000 status on their own.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
Well this is ridiculous sentiment as the clay season has been decimated over the years including the Fall. There are no clay events between RG through Wimbledon. Stuttgart converted to grass in case you hadn't noticed.:rolleyes: There are challenger events of course and if you wish to wipe that out well I find your desired level of control disturbing.

Two month grass season.:-D ATP right now is struggling to fill the grass season with quality events. Do you at least have prospective facilities ready to have grass events?:sneaky: I'm not even sure that Halle or Queens have the capacity/fan base worthy of Masters 1000 status on their own.
The "clay season" is virtually the entire year. It needs a lot more "decimation".

You want business as usual, the thread is about a reset .. so not really for you.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
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.
That is only if the pandemic comes to a definitive end. Because this virus doesn't grant immunity, the tour (and society in general) will have to adapt if it wants to continue in the age of a permanent pandemic situation.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
The "clay season" is virtually the entire year. It needs a lot more "decimation".

You want business as usual, the thread is about a reset .. so not really for you.
The hard court season is 8 months of the year, clay is 2 months. If anything, we need to cut back on the HC season and give more room for grass and clay (although as some other poasters mentioned, it would make the Channel Slam much easier).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
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?
It would make sense for a reset, but only if the tour resumes in 2028.

Admittedly, OP needs to define "reset". A bit vague.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
We can't just reset the tour right now because there are still so many unknowns about the virus - when do infection rates peak, when do they slow down, are they controlled by seasonal changes, etc, etc. Only once we know how to work a regular tour schedule around the patterns of virus transmission and find the safest parts of the year (if there is even such a thing) to hold tournaments, can tennis resume. Until then, at least for the next 5-10 years, we'd just have to do trial and error, cancelling tournaments when infections go up and holding them when it's relatively safer. It won't be a fair system to every player/tournament but the only other option is to suspend all events for the foreseeable future.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
We can't just reset the tour right now because there are still so many unknowns about the virus - when do infection rates peak, when do they slow down, are they controlled by seasonal changes, etc, etc. Only once we know how to work a regular tour schedule around the patterns of virus transmission and find the safest parts of the year (if there is even such a thing) to hold tournaments, can tennis resume. Until then, at least for the next 5-10 years, we'd just have to do trial and error, cancelling tournaments when infections go up and holding them when it's relatively safer. It won't be a fair system to every player/tournament but the only other option is to suspend all events for the foreseeable future.
Let's face it, professional tennis is over with.

I knew this from as soon as the whole mess started. This virus isn't going away. Tennis might be reduced to meaningless regional events. World rankings won't mean anything, won't exist. No slams. The Big 3 race has been forever interrupted and will be a source of speculation for years.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
The "clay season" is virtually the entire year. It needs a lot more "decimation".

You want business as usual, the thread is about a reset .. so not really for you.
Well with clay season moved to the fall this year it does look like it's really expanded. Great move:p
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Let's face it, professional tennis is over with.

I knew this from as soon as the whole mess started. This virus isn't going away. Tennis might be reduced to meaningless regional events. World rankings won't mean anything, won't exist. No slams. The Big 3 race has been forever interrupted and will be a source of speculation for years.
All valid, But tennis in a better position than most other sports.:unsure:
 
Top