Players Tennis Council - Should Active Players Be Axed?

Having read through articles associated with this topic, it seems that they spend so much time disagreeing with each other it almost resembles the Pirate Council from the Pirates of the Carribbean films!

There is no doubt that players such as Nadal and Federer will have 'contested objectives' There will be some personal bias towards their own preferences and positions in the game.

'I want a shorter season Roger'
'Sod off Rafa!! I hate running around the court with you'

'I want more prize money Rafa, sod the guys who barely make the latter stages'
'No Roger, they deserve some prize money'

'I want a protected ranking Rog so if I am run down or carrying injury, I don't fall down the rankings'
'Not a chance Rafa. Waht about the lower ranked guys coming up?'

Very sticky and political for any sport one would agree.

However, I think ex-players should resemble the council and make these decisions. Guys who have put the air miles in and understand the demands of the game and whether it is fair all down the order. Would current players argue with Connors if he shortened the tour? Would current players have a fit if McEnroe said for prize money to be divided more equally? would current players disagree with Sampras if he said no to protected rankings?

I know Federer fans do not support a shorter season, but the game has changed and evolved. The game favours physically superior players. That is the direction of the game at the moment. Players such as Dolgopolov and Dimitriov may bare some similarities to Federer's game, but have yet to truly advance in tournaments to suggest the game is in that mould. Federer is 31 and not getting any younger. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are the future and the upcoming players are in that mould. Whether morally it is supported by the fans, it is something that is a reality in the tour for the current players.

I feel the game itself would be in better hands if the council was made up of ex-players. The decisions made would at least be impartial and none of them would be made to be 'favourable' to individual players.

Also I would like to see the council have influence over court conds and pressure them to be more competative. Variable surfaces should off variety in play. Something which is not happening.

Who do you think should make the players council up?

Former players are just that, former. They are out of the sport.

The governing bodies of anything should be made up of the stakeholders - usually owners and/or major participants. Former players could be enlisted to provide sage non-executiove advice, but without authority.

I run a fairly large privately owned company and believe me any other way is stupid.

Ltd's are far different to Sporting Councils. If anything I would compare a Sporting Council to Charity Organisation. An entity that is non-funded by Stakeholders and is exclusively run by Members. I am a Senior Buyer and the organisation to which my membership is run by is made up of buyers past and present and runs smoothly.

Any sport not having any input on it's running by past experience is stupid. You cannot legislate for experience.

That's why you have non-execs.

Indeed, ex-players can fit that mould.

Quite, but the key is to have them in an advisory capacity only. The minute you get old stagers running the show there are problems.

Very true. Though I would love for them to influence the conds aspect. They above all else could easily say that changing the conds would reduce the call for seasons to be shortened so that each Slam is not a last man standing contest.

A sad indictment for 2011 was that Roland Garros played faster than the other 3 Slams!

Did you really mean to start a "conditions" thread?

Thought I would be cheeky enough to throw that in there. I think it is something that supports my case for ex-pro's involvement and the influence they could have

Answer to the OP - no, that would be a recipe for another split.

Take their advice as non-execs, yes, but not more than that.

legendkillar wrote:Having read through articles associated with this topic, it seems that they spend so much time disagreeing with each other it almost resembles the Pirate Council from the Pirates of the Carribbean films!

There is no doubt that players such as Nadal and Federer will have 'contested objectives' There will be some personal bias towards their own preferences and positions in the game.

'I want a shorter season Roger'
'Sod off Rafa!! I hate running around the court with you'

'I want more prize money Rafa, sod the guys who barely make the latter stages'
'No Roger, they deserve some prize money'

'I want a protected ranking Rog so if I am run down or carrying injury, I don't fall down the rankings'
'Not a chance Rafa. Waht about the lower ranked guys coming up?'

Very sticky and political for any sport one would agree.

However, I think ex-players should resemble the council and make these decisions. Guys who have put the air miles in and understand the demands of the game and whether it is fair all down the order. Would current players argue with Connors if he shortened the tour? Would current players have a fit if McEnroe said for prize money to be divided more equally? would current players disagree with Sampras if he said no to protected rankings?

I know Federer fans do not support a shorter season, but the game has changed and evolved. The game favours physically superior players. That is the direction of the game at the moment. Players such as Dolgopolov and Dimitriov may bare some similarities to Federer's game, but have yet to truly advance in tournaments to suggest the game is in that mould. Federer is 31 and not getting any younger. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are the future and the upcoming players are in that mould. Whether morally it is supported by the fans, it is something that is a reality in the tour for the current players.

I feel the game itself would be in better hands if the council was made up of ex-players. The decisions made would at least be impartial and none of them would be made to be 'favourable' to individual players.

Also I would like to see the council have influence over court conds and pressure them to be more competative. Variable surfaces should off variety in play. Something which is not happening.

Who do you think should make the players council up?

Great article LK

Great summation of 606v2 debate.

Brad Drewett, is no longer a player, but is the CEO of ATP.

A judicious mix of experience and youth always succeeds.

Mix of ex and current players might work.

If the players can't agree what their opinion is they won't convince the other interests. There is a lack or organisation with the players for me. If Federer, said "16 of the top 20 players have voted to get rid of super Saturday, now USO, are you going to listen?" maybe they would.

legendkillar wrote:I know Federer fans do not support a shorter season, but the game has changed and evolved.

I don't think that's true. The game and the rules have not changed. What changed is the fact that the tour is now bending on what the players (2 or 3 maybe) want whereas in the past the players had to comply with the rules and the schedule. PLayers in the 70s were already complaining about the length of the tour AND they were taking too long between points cause they had endless rallies.

The rule of 20s was set up to stop this and change the rhythm of play. This 20s rule is crucial to the health on the game cause it is purposedly there to force the player to shorten their rallies.

Tennis like all sports is a very fragile balance. If you move one parameter, it can have big consequeces. Change the size of the balls, the pace of the courts, the width of the court, strings, etc.. and the balance shifts and the skills to dominate change completely affecting the ranking.

This is something as fans we need to understand. WHat Nadal is trying to do here is to maximise his chances of wining. If we change those conds, someone else will dominate.

The fact is the rule are there to be applied and the season is there to satisfy a wide range of organisers, players and fans and that is what real tennis fans shoudl be concerned about! Not Rafa's little success.

legendkillar wrote:I know Federer fans do not support a shorter season, but the game has changed and evolved.

Either a shorter season, if the conditions are similarly brutal, or, a better individual player schedule management.

From a table in another article...

Top 10 in 2011...

Rank	Name	Tournaments	Total Matches	Avg Matches/Tournament
1	Djokovic	19	79	4.2
2	Nadal	20	85	4.3
3	Federer	19	73	3.8
4	Murray	20	67	3.4
5	Ferrer	23	78	3.4
6	Tsonga	25	81	3.2
7	Berdych	23	76	3.3
8	Fish	23	67	2.9
9	Tipsarevic	28	79	2.8
10	Almagro	28	70	2.5

Players with most tournaments played in 2011 ...

Rank	Name	Tournaments	Total Matches	Avg Matches/Tournament
84	Paire	36	87	2.4
45	Andujar	33	60	1.8
72	Volandri	33	71	2.2
98	Kamke	33	70	2.1
34	Bogomolov	32	91	2.8
47	Fognini	32	60	1.9
61	Berlocq	32	74	2.3
67	Ramos	32	90	2.8
88	Riba	32	74	2.3

This indicates....

1. For the lower-ranked players, having more tournaments provides more opportunities to make a living.

2. For top ranked, having fewer tournies, requires less exertion and pays more.

I remember when Federer had to play Paris 2 years ago, he played and lost v Benetteau. Same thing in that Cincy wherehe lost v Murray.

The organisers prefer that than a complete planned withdrawal, the fans are happy because they have something to talk about andthe player can rest a bit.

No big deal, no fuss, no mess, everybodies happy.