US Open - Redemption

It has to be said that poor weather and poor organising equates to a poor Slam that not only frustrates the players, but the fans too. If they are aiming to finish on time it will be one of the worst one sided Slams ever.

It isn't just Nadal, Murray, Roddick that are affected. Federer and Djokovic will be too. Even though they have played one match more, they are facing the same problems the other 3 mentioned are.

Though they can redeem themselves the US organisers.

1. Look at all available courts and also the time. May well be that the players may need to start early in the morning and may even play into the wee hours of the morning.

2. Extend the Slam timetable by 4 days and give all players sufficient time to recover in between matches.

3. Refund ticket money to all the fans and even increase the prize pot so that the players are rewarded for all this poor organising.

Agree with the sentiments, but:

1. Earlier starts sound like a good idea, I don't know what the logistics would be like. Late play creates its own unfairness and difficulties as a few well-publicized complaints at the Aus Open have shown. The winner of such a match is usually screwed for the next round without big recovery time.

2. What? You'd interfere with the TV schedules from little league dragster racing in Nebraska or something - nice idea but can you see them doing it when they were only yesterday saying they'd finish by Sunday?

3. You cannot be serious - this sounds very unlikely. I don't know what sort of insurance they have against the weather, but if I were the insurer I would have asked for a hugely increased premium because of the risks of delay and unfairness built into their scheduling.

May well be that the players may need to start early in the morning and may even play into the wee hours of the morning.

Starting at 11am is already quite an early start for tennis don't you think so leg? The only thing wrong with the very late early hours is that it can be freezing at that time, spectators would probably find it an inconvenience on their sleeping pattern/life.

nice idea but can you see them doing it when they were only yesterday saying they'd finish by Sunday?

Sorry but they are never finishing by sunday. 4 matches in 4 days is very rigorous for a bo3 tournament, and here they are playing bo5. It's really not going to happen, even without the further rain expected.

What I hoped they had considered was a contingency plan for either an indoor venue (Madison Square Garden) or have another city hosting the slam for the past few days, probably was unlikely considered the match goers were not going to travel, but something they should consider for next time.

@JM - Of course they can't sensibly finish by Sunday, but nor could they sensibly have said on Tuesday that they were "confident" that they'd finish by Sunday. That attitude indicates that they are most unlikely to do what lk suggests and sit down to re-work a proper schedule on the basis of a 4-day extension. They'll more likely bodge and trim and try to play it by ear on a daily, even an hourly, basis and see what is the earliest finish that they can get away with by doing that. They obviously don't care too much about differing recovery times for the players so that is likely to have a miminal effect on their plans.

Another point - the first thing they might do is pop out and buy a few court covers so that when it stops raining they are ready to play.

Last I heard they were still saying they would finish on Sunday because "these are top athletes'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Last I heard they were still saying they would finish on Sunday because "these are top athletes'.

Really, they think it's OK to ask players to play four BO5 matches on consecutive days? Djokovic and Federer must be laughing so hard... Imagine, Rafa and Murray slugging it out for a place in the final having already played the two previous days, and then the winner needs to go out and play the final the next day?!?! Wonderful! Of course it's not all about the money is it?

It's Nole who must be laughing; at 30 Federer can't cope with 3 in 4.

As for all this "about money" thing, hasn't anyone noticed that the whole sport is about money?
Court covers is the most intelligent thing I've seen on this thread. Oh, and how about roofing one of the important courts that ISN'T Ashe? At least the event could continue.

there was a good little discussion on 5live I think about the roof problem BB, I sent the link in another post

bogbrush wrote:It's Nole who must be laughing; at 30 Federer can't cope with 3 in 4.

As for all this "about money" thing, hasn't anyone noticed that the whole sport is about money?
Court covers is the most intelligent thing I've seen on this thread. Oh, and how about roofing one of the important courts that ISN'T Ashe? At least the event could continue.

Money talks in top sport as the very rich athletes will know to their advantage. Equally, everyone who has paid any attention to the USO over the last 10 years has noticed that the balance has been struck way too far in favour of the greenback and this was waiting to happen. Players must take their share of the blame if they have not spoken out in the past rather than taken the money and tried to lobby for the schedule to work to their advantage (we don't know what they say behind closed doors).

I thought about a roof other than on Ashe - but that would be close to unworkable. At Wimbledon the best tickets for spectators and the best court for players has/have always been CC, even more so now because of the roof. If you have a lesser court with a roof and your main court without you dislocate the feel of the event, the notion of build-up to the big match in the most prestigious environment and the notion prevailing at all tournaments that one show court is more special than the others. You also create a complete headache for your ticketing policy. I agree that any roofed court would be better than the current farrago, but in the long-term the best court also has to have the roof.

Apparently the roofing would cost in excess of $200-300 million, for a ROOF!

It's really reckless of the organisers to feel these players should be playing 2-4 hours for 4 straight days, not to mention they would be tinkering their games on practise courts, they would have virtually no rest.

Tut tut tut reckless of the organisers? Yet on another thread you are slating Nadal for having a go at those organisers?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tut tut tut reckless of the organisers? Yet on another thread you are slating Nadal for having a go at those organisers?

I never praised the organisers either did I? Learn to read between the lines before making yourself look like a nursery child.

What I said was; "What bugs me though was Nadal suggesting the tournament doesn't care about the players, oh so they are not paying you a handsome cheque after your tournament is over are they? He should be aware that even the tournament referee is under pressure himself, he won't be making these decisions on personal preference."

What as this got to do with playing 4 matches in 4 days? Two totally different things altogether sonny.

I for one would like to see the organisers make a statement in regards to when they will think the tournament will end. They are either moronic or desparate if they think it will end on Sunday.

I know when the roof was first mentioned in relation to Arthur Ashe Stadium, they said it would cost a load and also would lose seats in the stadium.

The USTA and the organisers are in a sticky situation in regards to what they can do in the event of such weather. To stick their heads in the sand would be ignorant. They need to form some kind of contingency plan. Maybe build a new stadium in the grounds with a roof.

legendkillar wrote:I for one would like to see the organisers make a statement in regards to when they will think the tournament will end. They are either moronic or desparate if they think it will end on Sunday.

I know when the roof was first mentioned in relation to Arthur Ashe Stadium, they said it would cost a load and also would lose seats in the stadium.

The USTA and the organisers are in a sticky situation in regards to what they can do in the event of such weather. To stick their heads in the sand would be ignorant. They need to form some kind of contingency plan. Maybe build a new stadium in the grounds with a roof.

I agree with all of that - the question is how likely they are to do it? If they get away with a full day's play today I suspect they'll try to squeeze it in by Monday, perhaps Tuesday at the very latest making reactive decisions as they go along.

If they lose another full day today it's difficult to see how they can avoid announcing a solid plan B - it's one thing having to juggle with a couple of QF's and SF's (something they like to do when the schedule goes according to plan), it's quite another when R16 isn't properly over for a good chunk of the draw.

I don;t think there is any point saying when they think the tournament will end. First cause they haven't got a clue, and secondly, it limits their options, including the possible best ones.

Well not if they put *subject to change

legendkillar wrote:Well not if they put *subject to change

More like ...*bound to change

If they miss today's play I think that they ought to say that the tournament will not end before Xday (probably tuesday) assuming good weather but that it may go longer. Even if they get a full day in today, I think they probably ought to confirm tonight that the men's final will not be earlier than Monday assuming good weather.

It is not possible now to envisage the men's final being on Sunday in my view, even with blistering sunshine every day, and I think that they are losing credibility by not biting that bullet.

bogbrush wrote:It's Nole who must be laughing; at 30 Federer can't cope with 3 in 4.

As for all this "about money" thing, hasn't anyone noticed that the whole sport is about money?
Court covers is the most intelligent thing I've seen on this thread. Oh, and how about roofing one of the important courts that ISN'T Ashe? At least the event could continue.

Great suggestion by BB, but then you have the problem of all the people who have tickets for 22,000 seat Ashe stadium now having to fit in the smaller Armstrong stadium. How would we decide who gets in and who doesn't and would the organizers still want to go on with the matches if they have to pay back 33 percent of the tickets? But it is good suggestion that should be looked into although it has some major pitfalls.

Plus there's the ongoing weather to contend with too...I've read 80% chance of rain today, 30% Fri, 30% Sat, 30% Sun. Not great.

Pardon the pun but this could be a watershed year for USO - they may need to seriously think of better contingencies in future as USO in early Sept seems to be getting wetter and wetter in recent years...

Forecast in newyork is pretty much saying that it will rain most of the day thursday and friday and maybe even into saturday.

I just read an article by the BBC tennis correspondent who seemed more fixated on the players bashing the officials then the problem at hand.

The USTA seem to think that a roof will cost too much money. They are of the stance that they would have slash development funds in the process. This is a real eye opener to the financial mess they must be in. Wimbledon in 10 years turned over £500 million. I can only assume that based on population and the more seats that the US Open has that they must've made nearly 50% more than Wimbledon has over the last decade. As a tennis fan I would say, If the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the French Open can have plans for roofs or new stadiums, why can't the US?

If they can finish it on Sunday...they will finish it on Sunday. No doubt about this. Fitness disadvantage will have very little weight in their decision making process. They are pretty famous for that aren't they?

Giving all 4 4th rounds the earlier starting time can be seen as a fair move for the players but I dont think that was the initial motive, it's more likely that it gave them the best options to keep the tournament within its shortest deadlines. As soon as everybody is ready for the next round, they will want to get it going. As simple as that.

What I don't understand however is that since it's all down to TV rights and money, why don;t they do like the FO and have players play the first Sunday (Not that it woudl have changed anything this time), as this can certainly give more flexibility....even giving 3 start of dates for the big players like they like to do it.

legendkillar wrote:The USTA seem to think that a roof will cost too much money. They are of the stance that they would have slash development funds in the process. This is a real eye opener to the financial mess they must be in. Wimbledon in 10 years turned over £500 million. I can only assume that based on population and the more seats that the US Open has that they must've made nearly 50% more than Wimbledon has over the last decade. As a tennis fan I would say, If the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the French Open can have plans for roofs or new stadiums, why can't the US?

Well maybe building a roof will be part of Obama's speech on jobs creation and his $300 billion budget?

What makes the US Open different
than the other 3 GSs is that the semifinals and
the finals are played on consecutive days.
In a way is an endurance test in the end of two weeks.
So presuming that today rains,a US Open style final means
Sunday semifinals Monday finals with no rest day
for Nadal, Murray etc. or a Tuesday final with one day
rest for them and two for Fed-Djo etc.

legendkillar wrote:I just read an article by the BBC tennis correspondent who seemed more fixated on the players bashing the officials then the problem at hand.

The USTA seem to think that a roof will cost too much money. They are of the stance that they would have slash development funds in the process. This is a real eye opener to the financial mess they must be in. Wimbledon in 10 years turned over £500 million. I can only assume that based on population and the more seats that the US Open has that they must've made nearly 50% more than Wimbledon has over the last decade. As a tennis fan I would say, If the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the French Open can have plans for roofs or new stadiums, why can't the US?

Their current predicament purely vis-a-vis a roof may not be quite as idiotic as it sounds. In 1997-odd they went down the route of a huge stadium so roofing it in now would be a very great logistical and financial headache. That may mean they made a bad decision 13 years ago, but the legacy of that decision today is a genuinely difficult one. Roofing a lesser stadium would create nightmare ticketing issues over the longer term - it's got to be the biggest and best stadium that has a roof.

Also, it's not entirely fair to compare the USTA with the AELTC - the latter's priority is very much the Championships and not tennis development for which they have only indirect responsibilty at best. For example, if the LTA owned Wimbledon I bet we'd have perimter advertising and the like to raise more money because if they did not they'd probably be criticized for not maximising the return whilst the AELTC can do what they like - and do.

To my mind the roof debate for the USO is a bit of a side show when there are many far more simple things that they can get right that could ease a lot of pressure - take back control of scheduling with a view to getting the Tournament over and giving players equal recovery times, aim to get the first round over on Monday-Tuesday (Wednesday starts are absurd), get rid of stupid saturday, buy some covers for the Courts, be prepared to see biggish matches played on outdoor courts during the daytime. If all the R16 matches had been played by the end of Tuesday and courts were dry and ready for play shortly after rain stopped because of covers there'd be much less of a furore than there is. In fact, I bet the USTA like the focus being on a roof because they have answers, whilst they don't for the other stupid things they do.

Is that a form of poem, Faust? Japanese?

It is called Kabuki Bogbrush!
In case you dont understand Japanese
it means do not expect to see Fed-Djo
having the day off before the final.That
of course IF the USTA does not Flip up
again.
さよなら。

Cool!

I thought it was something like that, though I don't understand the format. What causes you to separate the lines - it is syllables or something?

It is walking in Manhattan with a Nokia,
but I will tell you this. If you have a relevant tennis
point of view you should express it. That is what this
forum is all about. However if you prefer to
be the linguistic bumhole of the forum that is ok with me too.

!too it do
can I
look

(that's as good as my Japanese gets!)

Is it just a case of randomly
splitting sentences into separate
lines in order to look like a poem or is
there something more to it than
that?

Apparently... wait for it..

They haven't ruled out playing TWO matches in one day

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/sports/tennis/us-open-the-matches-pile-up-as-rain-wins-again.html?_r=2&ref=sports

But me thinks this will not take place.

Faust wrote:It is walking in Manhattan with a Nokia,
but I will tell you this. If you have a relevant tennis
point of view you should express it. That is what this
forum is all about. However if you prefer to
be the linguistic bumhole of the forum that is ok with me too.

What?

Curley did not rule out having either the men or women play twice in the same day — unthinkable as that might be. He also said men’s matches would remain best-of-five-sets, even if they play four matches in four days.

“It’s fair for all the players,” he said. “They’re all in the same situation. I don’t think it’s a safety issue. I think it’s a fitness issue.”

yes as I said earlier, having the 4 4th round matches starting at the same time, had not much to do with fairness to players but trying to finish the tournament on Sunday.

That is their priority. Only rain can prevent that not "fairness"!

From that link, regarding finishing on Sunday - “It’s fair for all the players,” he (Jim Curley) said. “They’re all in the same situation."

What a dumb-@ss!

From Emancipator's article:

"Jim Curley, the Open’s tournament director, said that officials intended to finish the tournament on time. If the men’s fourth-round matches finish Thursday, he said, such a time frame remains realistic.

Curley did not rule out having either the men or women play twice in the same day — unthinkable as that might be. He also said men’s matches would remain best-of-five-sets, even if they play four matches in four days.

“It’s fair for all the players,” he said. “They’re all in the same situation. I don’t think it’s a safety issue. I think it’s a fitness issue.”
"

The USO is in fine hands for sure. The one thing the schedule strives officiously to achieve is that no two sides of the draw are in the same situation - and that's quite definitely the case today.

If they cut any matches to best of three this Slam would have to be asterisked.

The essence of a Slam is 7 best-of-5 matches. There can be no slippage from this.

I love this too from the good ole USTA “not all light rain and mist shows up on radar” - how's about getting out and taking a fricking look?

I love this too from the good ole USTA “not all light rain and mist shows up on radar”

Ameritards common sense prevailing!

When they announced yesterday that play was about to start I had a look at a live cam of AA and all the spectators had their umbrellas up.

You are a bit harsh! This was to explain why they kept delaying start of play cause they were told of dry patches which turned out to be light (invisible) rain.

Tenez wrote:You are a bit harsh! This was to explain why they kept delaying start of play cause they were told of dry patches which turned out to be light (invisible) rain.

Well, yes, but they might have had a couple of guys stationed out there to tell them whether what looked like dry patches on the radar were dry patches in reality - since it takes a bit of time to get the courts dry they need to have at least a few minutes of dry on the surface and in the air at the Tennis Centre to be able to play.

A roof wouldn't have solved the problem because of the number of matches to be played. 3 maybe 4 would be needed.

No doubt matches will be crammed into any break in the rain. Matches played simultaneously on smaller courts mean spectators lose out. The television audience can only watch one match at a time and smaller courts can only cater for a limited live audience. The quality of the matches will be lower because players will have insufficient recovery time. It all points to a poorer product. Not to mention the crazy situation yesterday when it looked like the organisers panicked and made the stupid decision to start play when it had hardly stopped raining and more heavy rain was forcast.

Not a lot can be done to salvage this years open. It is probably just freakish weather. The good thing is after this year feel sure plans for a roof will be made. Maybe on Grandstand or Armstrong or over a new smaller show court. It would also help if the start date could be moved back a week. Personally I wouldn't mind moving (or getting rid of... ) Cinci to accommodate this.

bogbrush wrote:If they cut any matches to best of three this Slam would have to be asterisked.

The essence of a Slam is 7 best-of-5 matches. There can be no slippage from this.

Spot on, otherwise it'll become a glorified Masters event. But players playing twice in a day is laughable, really! “It’s fair for all the players,” he said. “They’re all in the same situation." Possibly the most ridiculous quote of the week. The whole problem here is that the two halves of the draw are most definitely NOT in the same situation...

I am actually in favour of cutting the remaining matches to best of 3 up to the semi. Sure it will be asterisked but frankly they all are one way or another.

In fact I think it's a good idea. It certainly a way to make what's left of this USO "fairer". Best of 5 can be pretty unfair nowadays. Best of 5 versus Tsip is not quite the same as best of 5 versus Murray, Djoko, Federer or Tsonga.

This makes the best of 3 format under this crammed timeframe a very good option.

You couldn't have some players playing a 4th round 3-setter after others have already played a 4th round 5-setter, which would only leave the QFs.

I'm with BB on this - no 3-setters all!

The asterisked slam...

Hawkeye, it is more than "just freakish weather".
Barring a pleasant weather surprise this will be the
FOURTH year in row that we have a Moday final.
And given that the event always coincides with the Labor Day
weekend here, it cannot be moved a week later.They should
never play first round games on Wednsday the first week.
Maybe they should start the Open on Sunday.
I agree with you that after this year's fiasco plans for a roof will be made.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You couldn't have some players playing a 4th round 3-setter after others have already played a 4th round 5-setter, which would only leave the QFs.

I'm with BB on this - no 3-setters all!

Of course make the 4th round mactches best of 5. But not the 1/4F and Semis. It's too physical.

best of 5 is a guarantee win for Djoko. Best of 3 could keep this open.