Would they reduce the fields at majors?

Cut 'em in half, for instance?

They were probably 64 back in the day. So it'd be a retro thing. :sneaky:

Seriously though... as if the Tour weren't weak enough these days, if a bunch of high level players opt out... imagine the product we'll get on the court. :oops:
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
If the field was 64, Becker wouldn't have won Wimbledon in 85, Agassi wouldn't have won the USO in 94 and Goran would have been unlikely to get a wildcard in 01.

I think it's really unhealthy that so many people believe it's impossible to see good tennis from anyone outside the top 20 (or top 5).
 
If the field was 64, Becker wouldn't have won Wimbledon in 85, Agassi wouldn't have won the USO in 94 and Goran would have been unlikely to get a wildcard in 01.

I think it's really unhealthy that so many people believe it's impossible to see good tennis from anyone outside the top 20 (or top 5).
I'm talking now. 2021 and beyond.

And it's a hypothetical. I am by no means advocating for this development.

Nevertheless, compared to the level to which we've become accustomed... the talent level of the succeeding generations here is pretty poor.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I'm talking now. 2021 and beyond.

And it's a hypothetical. I am by no means advocating for this development.

Nevertheless, compared to the level to which we've become accustomed... the talent level of the succeeding generations here is pretty poor.
I watched some of the AO quallies and there was more entertaining tennis than many slam finals of the last decade.
 

Robert F

Professional
From a TV idea to the general public it sounds like a good idea. For tennis in the long run, I think it is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the first week of slams can be really hard to watch on TV. For some reason they play the top seeds and Americans constantly despite the playability of the match. You can watch the Big 3 dominate unlucky up and comers and scrubs while a heart fought battle on court 18 is going on between two established journeymen. They'll flip to that match for match point or a break point, then head back to the announcers saying how great the Big 3 or Serena is. I'm all for that talk but let's save it for the weekend. They should flip the format, focus on the scrubs/up and comers and go to the big names for brief moments or potential upsets. I think this would help the general public know more names then the Big 3.

If you dropped the draw, you'd get rid of lot of the boring crap in the first week, hence TV might be more interesting.

But, I think the Majors need the bigger draw for credibility, plus so many pros depend on the majors for money.
 

blablavla

Legend
Cut 'em in half, for instance?

They were probably 64 back in the day. So it'd be a retro thing. :sneaky:

Seriously though... as if the Tour weren't weak enough these days, if a bunch of high level players opt out... imagine the product we'll get on the court. :oops:
check the Norrie vs Corda semifinal
the end of 2nd set, starting with 40-15, when Corda had 2 MP
all of a sudden it become a contest of who will lose more points
nobody wanted to win, but unfortunately tennis rules say that there can be only 1 player that lost the match in singles
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Then each slam would last a month. I'm in.
Yah. It's only 1-3 more rounds in total, but the earlier rounds would take days so somewhere between 3-4 weeks. Obviously less people will watch earlier rounds but it would make the later rounds more epic. Maybe B03 for the first 3 rounds to speed things along.
 

James P

Legend
I think the slams are perfect right now with 128 MD field and 128 QD field. Not sure if the organizers' hands will be forced by what the world is throwing at them, though, so it's certainly a possibility.
 

Robert F

Professional
I think what the AO had to do by having the qualies in Doha was smart. I wonder if more slams or masters could do this.
For the any slam have 4 qualifier sites to spread the tennis and get more exposure.
So for the US Open have the qualies in Chicago, San Francisco, Houston and of course New York. With the top spot at each location moving on to the US Open.
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
All we need is a field of two players and it can still be interesting. Would you watch an exhibition tournament if two of the Big 3 had to play each other five times in Bestof5 matches over the course of a week? The winner would have to win three of those matches to win. Would be like a playoff series in baseball or a chess match between two champions and it would be interesting to see if they adapt tactics/strategy etc.as the series progressed.

I would watch it with more enthusiasm than watching many early round matches in tournaments between lesser known players.
 

Robert F

Professional
Sounds like the barnstorming days of the 40's and 50's where the pros played each other almost nightly.

For me the key is having a competitive match with some aggression. Having Djoker bash the 154th ranked guy is no fun to watch. But watching 154 try to beat 100 can be interesting if they guys are really going at it.
 
Top