Wilander predictably wants fewer tournaments

He seems to think this would make the game less predictable.

What an idiot.

What do you have to not take into account for that to even make sense?

To be honest, I think the top players should be allowed to skip masters with no punishment needed, they are top 8/10 players for a reason. When they say less tournaments, they probably mean they want to skip some masters, and allow lesser players more chances to earn points.

And turn the events they skip into financial disasters, leaving the lower rankers to fight for no money while the top boys hit the gym so hey can get even fitter to make this match look like a sprint.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:To be honest, I think the top players should be allowed to skip masters with no punishment needed, they are top 8/10 players for a reason. When they say less tournaments, they probably mean they want to skip some masters, and allow lesser players more chances to earn points.

I agree, even if it is just one masters they can skip. Don't see how it would turn them into financial disasters - they are not likely to all skip the same one.

Or maybe we could just leave things as they are and not change the whole sport to accommodate one style of play?

bogbrush wrote:Or maybe we could just leave things as they are and not change the whole sport to accommodate one style of play?

Maybe you can accept that not everyone agrees that style of play is the reason it would be a positive step.

bogbrush wrote:Or maybe we could just leave things as they are and not change the whole sport to accommodate one style of play?

I agree. If anything I'd like to squeeze another slam starting tomorrow Monday. This way, Maybe those who go for their shots may have a second chance.

I think that there should be no compulsory tournaments, players should be able to play where they want. They are entertainers in a way and are not employed as such by the tour (or if they are, they shouldn't be). You wouldn't say to Madonna you have compulsory gigs in x, y or z locations.

For me, removing the compulsory tournaments would not reduce total tournament play of the top players, or not by much. It would mean that tournaments win the best players based on their history, fans, stadium size, facilities etc rather than because they are in bed with the ATP and have paid for rights. That would just be a fairer, better system.

If you really want, you could still say to players you must play a minimum of 15 tournaments a year or offer series linked prize money like the US Open series to ensure participation doesn't fall off too much.

Or do what I suggest on a trial basis for a year but tell the players they have to revert back to the old system if they play too few tournaments.

Or how about a rule that players must play at least 6 of the masters.

Just can't see why players should be told what tournaments they must play because of the deals made. Really hurts the ability of other tournaments to attract top 4 and top 10 players. As the game is getting more physical, tournaments like Tokyo, Dubai, Rotterdam and a few others are starting to see top players not playing a little more because they have to attend all the masters and their schedule is 90% full after that.

Then you end up with a tiny professional tour like in the 60's.

Top pros do the Slams plus a few events to prepare, lots of lucrative appearance bribes to play in places like Dubai, and the rest slog around the circuit for f*ck all.

How many 500's and 250's do they have to play?

bogbrush wrote:And turn the events they skip into financial disasters, leaving the lower rankers to fight for no money while the top boys hit the gym so hey can get even fitter to make this match look like a sprint.

Like Shanghai ?

What's your point?

Federer skipped Shaghai in 2011 in order that he could be fit for Basel, Paris and WTF.

Yeah, exactly. And imagine if they didn't have to do anything, like Bill said?

The tour was put together in order to serve the interests of the whole professional sport, not in the interests of the few. If you abandon that you go back to 16 players playing each other for appearance money and the only difference from the 60's is that they get their cake and eat it by playing the Slams too.

So are you saying that Federer shouldn't have skipped Shanghai. If so fine. If not what's the difference between him and others.

My feeling/understanding is that the masters things was put together to try and drag tennis up to the level of interest of other sports when there are no slams on. In reality I don't think it's made a huge difference and would be better to relax the requirements a bit. Could still give players double prize money for the 7th masters they play each year, triple for the 8th and quadruple for the 9th (for example) to incentivise it, but don't see why players should absolutely HAVE to play. (Obviously in this example each tournament would have to pay into a pot from its proceeds rather than Paris having to take the hit!)

Calder106 wrote:So are you saying that Federer shouldn't have skipped Shanghai. If so fine. If not what's the difference between him and others.

If he did via the age exemption then ok (otherwise well have nobody > 30 on the tour).

I don't side with any player per se, I side with players who give me what i want. That makes me independent of their actions.

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:So are you saying that Federer shouldn't have skipped Shanghai. If so fine. If not what's the difference between him and others.

If he did via the age exemption then ok (otherwise well have nobody > 30 on the tour).

I don't side with any player per se, I side with players who give me what i want. That makes me independent of their actions.

Think you just side-stepped the question. As a player who says there is nothing wrong with the schedule do you think Federer should have skipped Shanghai so he could be ready for tournaments that he wanted to be fit for.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Calder106 wrote:So are you saying that Federer shouldn't have skipped Shanghai. If so fine. If not what's the difference between him and others.

If he did via the age exemption then ok (otherwise well have nobody > 30 on the tour).

I don't side with any player per se, I side with players who give me what i want. That makes me independent of their actions.

Think you just side-stepped the question. As a player who says there is nothing wrong with the schedule do you think Federer should have skipped Shanghai so he could be ready for tournaments that he wanted to be fit for.

No, I didn't.

You ask should he have, I say that what he did proves what would happen if the rules said do what you like.

As for his rights or wrongs, I imagine that if he abided by the rules laid down in particular for older players I can't fault that. If he broke the rules I certainly would fault him.

Ok so he had an exemption but two of the top four ranked players went out and played. Then were criticised by that same player a few weeks later for not managing their schedule properly.

7 of the top 20 missed Shanghai which I'm sure the TD was delighted about. Sort of says something is not right.

We're agreeing, we just need to forget identities because ts getting into specific player circumstances. Don't forget those players wanted the rules changing and are 24/25, not >30.

Basically, the events have to be compulsory for everyone or the tour will disintegrate. No special rules for the top men.

Ok I'm fine with that. However I do think that the schedule needs looking at to give Masters 1000 events like Cincy, Shanghai and Paris the quality competition they deserve.

Calder106 wrote:7 of the top 20 missed Shanghai which I'm sure the TD was delighted about. Sort of says something is not right.

No one was more delighted than Muzza, I'm sure. This type scenario is his bread and butter.

Calder106 wrote:Ok I'm fine with that. However I do think that the schedule needs looking at to give Masters 1000 events like Cincy, Shanghai and Paris the quality competition they deserve.

No. It still doesn't work for me. They shoudl start to apply the 20s rule! That woudl mean they woudl have no choice but pull winners earlier in rallies, which in turn, win or lose, would make a tennis match much less exhausting than they currently are for those top physical players. Then they would naturally be happy to take on any TMS available.

In the past a match was essentially won or lost down to the form of the day. Which means they were essentially relying on their talent to win a match which in turn meant they were more likely to lose matches there and then. Whereas Nadal, MUrray and Djoko do not rely on talent to beat each other. They fight a marathon. There is nothing to do with "form of the day" (as their predictable results show). Same for Nadal when he beats Federer either. He knows that as good as Federer is, he just needs to bring everything back with enough spin to feel safe and wait for that "talent" to lose its edge so that the physical side of the game can finally take over.

Giving a more flexible schedule simply gives way for their game which in essence is already against the rule. There is something weird about their request to shorten the season: If I were Nadal for instance I woudl ask the spring season season to be spread out which is in fact the real problem, or certainly the most gruelling part of the year (from IW to Wimbledon). But Nadasl is quite ok with that part for some reasons...he is "prepared" for it. ANd of course for some strange reasons he is not prepared for Paris or Lodon despite a very good break after the USO or even SHanghai. Note that the USO follows a good break from WImbledon. To me teh "schedule" he wants is to adapt a necessary cycle to their gruelling game more than providing rest there and then when needed.