2007 Schedule... Sadly, Nothing's Changed

A quick look at the 2007 Grand Slam schedule, which I recently found posted on Tennis Week Online, makes it abundantly clear that the powers that be in the world of professional tennis are still clueless.

Here's what the geniuses have come up with:

Australian Open: Jan 15-28
Roland Garros: May 27-June 10
Wimbledon: June 25-July 8
U.S. Open: Aug 27-Sep 9

Brilliant, isn't it? Such a huge leap forward! I don't know about you, but I'm tired of banging my head against the establishment, because they just aren't listening.

Case in point #1: We've still got one of the sport's largest and most important events occuring a mere two weeks after the season has opened. That's like holding Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series in April. The play would be abysmal and the injuries high. And there would be little time for a build-up of interest and/or suspense. Sound familiar?

Case in point #2: We must still endure 17 weeks (count 'em!) of mostly European clay court tennis as the lead-up to Roland Garros.

Case in point #3: There's still only two weeks and a day between the last ball struck on the crushed red brick of Paris and the first ball in play on the grass of London's All England Club. And, we've still got to swallow seeing the British flag on our TVs while we're celebrating our Independence Day. So much for that victory in 1776.

So, two weeks to get ready for the Australian; 17 to prepare for the French; two to go from slow red dirt to quick, slippery grass; and to top it all off, we don't even get the star-spangled banner waving on our living room sets while we eat strawberries and cream for breakfast at Wimbledon. You couldn't make up a worse schedule if you tried. The lost marketing opportunities alone guarantee the pro game will continue to go relatively unnoticed by the larger sporting world. It's way past time tennis learns to market its prize products effectively.

It's really quite simple, and I've said it time and time again. But it bears repeating: we must structure the tour around the four majors — those stalwarts of the game, those time-honored traditions, those world-renowned entities, those most successful product brands. To do otherwise is quite simply to dilute the power and appeal of the sport. Now, personally, I would also add Davis Cup and the Masters Series, with its year-end Masters Cup, to the list. But that's another story for another time. For now, let's just focus on the four majors — the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open.

In the service of creating a RATIONAL Grand Slam tournament schedule that can be marketed to full effect, let's propose a set of four "Grand Slam Series" in the mold of the U.S. Open Series, with players competing for points that will translate to a doubling or trebling of their take at the major which is the series' namesake should they finish the series as points leader — just like the U.S. Open Series is structured today. So, in order to do this, each of the Grand Slam Series would need to be between five and seven weeks long, followed by the two-week long Slam. And ideally, each Grand Slam Series would be contested on the surface on which the Slam will be contested. Finally, strong consideration should be given to the regional market which could be tapped or exploited to ensure continued successful globalization of the sport.

With the basic tenets laid down, we'd have a Grand Slam schedule that looked something like this:

We'd start the year off with the Australian Open Series, a hardcourt and indoor series that would begin around the first of the year and run for five to seven weeks (each tournament in the series being a one-week event with a draw no larger than 64) and culminate with the two-week long Australian Open in Melbourne. It could have an Australasian flavor, circling the Pacific Rim, with one or two hard court events played in the California-Oregon-Washington corridor; two or three events played in Japan, Korea and China; one event in Southeast Asia or Indonesia; and one in New Zealand or Australia prior to the Slam. We could even go out on a limb and name it the Australian Open-Pacific Rim Series, and it would run seven to nine weeks and take us to the end of the third week of February or the end of the first week of March.

Next, we'd have a six- to eight-week Roland Garros-EuroAfrican Series, which would be a red clay series held throughout Europe and parts of Africa. It might, for example, include week-long events in Stockholm, Moscow, Istanbul, Morrocco, perhaps Johannesburg, then Rome, Barcelona or Madrid, and culminate in the two-week Slam in Paris. Nine or 10 weeks tops, taking us to the end of the second week of May.

Then we'd have a six- to eight-week Wimbledon-Atlantic Seacoast Series, a grass court series that would be played in coastal towns on either side of the "pond" (Atlantic Ocean), and culminate with the fortnight in London. This series could reach from the Netherlands to Boston, with a stop in Newport, Rhode Island, over the week comprising the Fourth of July, so Americans can see the stars and stripes gallantly waving while watching the top Wimbledon contenders compete at the Hall of Fame. Inductees to the Hall would become a real attraction, with the current crop of stars on hand to witness and pay tribute, as well. It's a double-whammy.

Finally, we'd head into the U.S. Open-Americas Series, which would take us to points across Canada, the U.S., and Central and South America, culminating of course in New York with the U.S. Open, the game's largest and most spectacular show. This tour could go to places like Toronto-Montreal, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Houston, Mexico City or Buenos Aries or Lima or Santiago, then Washington, New Haven and New York. The only difference I would make to the way it's done today is that I'd push it out one to two weeks, and hold all match play under the bright lights. Why do we insist on holding the majors during our vacation/holiday times? And imagine the stars who would come out each and every night, adding celebrity glitter to an already brilliant display of talent on court. During the daylight hours, the USTA could utilize their abundant resources to "grow the game"; the PTR and USPTA could hold clinics and certification seminars; there could be plenty of activities to draw kids in; and the boy's and girl's tournaments could be played.

As I see it, there is no down-side to structuring the pro tour around the Grand Slam events in the aforementioned manner. All that's needed is the will to make it happen. Where's our Commissioner of Tennis? John?... Andre?... Pete?....

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.