Like America’s national pastime, tennis is steeped in tradition. Tinkering with the game is invariably met with derision by the traditionalists who represent the game’s perennial support base. Propose eliminating the second serve, for example, and the legions respond with a gasp: “Good God, man, have you lost your mind!” Suggest that the best three-of-five sets in the Grand Slam championships should give way to the best two-of-three, and risk being railroaded out of town. Do not pass Go! Do not collect 200 dollars.
Little does it matter that racquet and ball manufacturers, as well as court surface technicians, have been tinkering with the game for years. That’s the way the ball bounces, one hears. Can’t stop progress, you know. And for once they’re right. The pro game has benefited enormously from changes engineered by entrepreneurs like Howard Head, whose oversized metal and graphite racquet frames virtually created the baseline power game. Even John McEnroe, that purist and critic of baseline bashing who once vociferously proposed that pros compete only with wooden racquets, has been quiet of late.
The introduction of the instant replay is cause for optimism. A purist and optimist myself, I believe a few small changes are in order. (A realist, too, I have my bags packed and a ticket on the Silver Streak just in case.)
First, let’s get rid of the service let, as has been done at the collegiate level. This would bring several positive results, not the least of which is that matches would be shortened by several minutes. Since a let is called whenever a player’s first or second serve touches the net cord before landing in, it stands to reason that eliminating it would also reduce the number of double-faults. I don’t know precisely how often a player miscues after one or more serves is played over due to a let, but I’m certain it’s commonplace. The service let is an anomaly; all other lets occurring once the ball is in play are disregarded — play continues. Eliminate the let rule and kill three birds with one stroke!
Second, make stalling nonexistent by strictly enforcing the 20-second rule between points. Let’s go a step further, make it 18 seconds, and insist that play not begin until 10 seconds have passed, thereby eliminating quick-serve gamesmanship, too. According to tennis’ code of conduct, the receiver is expected to “play at the reasonable pace of the server,” which is practically meaningless and entirely unenforcible. After all, what is a reasonable pace? Andre Agassi played extremely quickly, and while no one ever leveled the charge of gamesmanship on Agassi, his was an unreasonable pace by many standards. Simply allow the receiver a full 10 seconds to prepare for the serve, with 18 seconds as the maximum allowed the server to put the ball in play or receive a warning. The receiver should be allowed four seconds before the second serve, with the ball put in play within eight.
One other area that could use a quick fix is the first-round scheduling of the week-long 32- and 64-player tournaments that are sprinkled between the slams and that occupy the greater part of the calendar year. At present, the singles player who wins five or six matches to claim the title on Sunday afternoon must hop on a flight to the next city to face a first-round challenger the very next morning. Let’s give byes to those singles players who competed in semifinal and final matches the week before. This small change will eliminate a fistful of first-round upsets and withdrawals by marquis players. Tournament directors will have their main attractions live up to their commitments and fans will get what they came for.
While we’re at it, keep the best three-of-five set matches for the second week of a Slam. This will not only ease scheduling during the early rounds in rainy London and New York, but it will ensure that players have something left to give in the final rounds of play. We’ll miss the occasional first- or second-round barnburner, but those matches rarely make the history books. Save the best for last and give the people paying top dollar for seats on Centre Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium their money’s worth.
Am I the only one over the 12-point tiebreak? Let’s face facts: it’s not sudden death, as players must win by two points. The pro game should adopt the 9-point tiebreaker that the late James Van Alen left to the game. Fast, furious, full of suspense, the first to five points wins and at four points apiece the receiver chooses where to take the serve — deuce court or ad. Just five to nine points of gutsy tennis in under three minutes. That’s sudden death.
As for coaching during matches… good God, never!
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article first appeared in the December 2006 issue of TENNIS WEEK Magazine. The author has requested and been granted permission by the editors of TENNIS WEEK Magazine to reproduce the article in its entirety on this blog. 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.
Showing posts with label Improving the pro game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Improving the pro game. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Read me in TENNIS WEEK (December 2006)
I don't normally make a habit of tooting my own horn, but... if you happen to be a USPTA or PTR tennis professional, or know where you can pick up the December issue of TENNIS WEEK at a newstand, check out my article in Sight Lines on page 55, "Service Lets and Sudden Death." I believe you will find my thoughts on simple ways to improve the pro game interesting, or at least provocative.
So, if you get a chance to read my piece, let me know what you think by commenting here. Thanks.
So, if you get a chance to read my piece, let me know what you think by commenting here. Thanks.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Coaching on court: the pros and cons
Coaching is to sports as roots are to trees. There is not a major, established sport in existence that doesn't promote the reliance on well-trained, professional teachers and coaches in the development of skills, especially in young people. Take coaching out of some professional sports, and you've just got a bunch of guys playing street ball on a manicured lawn or polished wood floor. Is and should tennis at the pro level be any different? I think the answer is yes, and I entreat you to share your views with me. But first, let me explain my position.
Tennis has been compared with boxing and wrestling — sports with great physical and psychological demands — and for good reason. The one-on-one physical and mental combat that is the cornerstone of these sports is the trademark of tennis, also. Yet boxing and wrestling have allowed, indeed have promoted, the presence of qualified coaches and trainers working in the corners of their charges. There is a very good reason for this: boxers and wrestlers are at great risk of sustaining extreme physical trauma every time they step into the ring or onto the mat. Were no coach or trainer present, more athletes would leave the arena with serious injuries, or even on stretchers. Granted, the referees are there in large part to protect the athletes, but between rounds it is the coach and/or trainer who must assess his athlete's ability to continue and the likelihood of his sustaining serious injury should he go on.
Tennis players are not at nearly as great a risk of sustaining severe trauma. And should a player sustain one of the many common injuries during play, such as an ankle strain, ligament or cartilage tear, or severe cramps, heat exhaustion or dehydration, a non-partisan trainer is always waiting in the wings to assist that player. In fact, while the physical demands of tennis are great at the professional level, the risk of permanent or career-ending injury is fairly low. Life-threatening injuries are very rare to non-existent.
Tennis has also been compared to chess, with its multiple strategies and tactical maneuvers. And, while the physical demands of chess are not as great, surely mental stamina plays a large role in a chess master's success. But notice there are no coaches on the sideline helping the chess master to determine his next move or to help him see the deficiencies in his strategy or defense. The chess master is expected to adapt to the circumstances and to figure out on his own the best path to victory.
I believe that thinking for oneself is a cornerstone of the successful and admired tennis player. The successful player is able to think his way out of trouble — to innovate and improvise. He is first and foremost a problem solver, and each match is a test of his abililty to solve the puzzle and then to adapt his tactics in order to execute his new, winning strategy. As soon as a coach is allowed to "enter the ring" and sit beside his charge at the changeovers, call out to him between points, or make hand signals and gestures, the puzzle solver is no longer the guy with the racquet in his hand. The coach becomes the mastermind, and the player is reduced to executioner of the grand plan passed on to him. He's still the quarterback, but he receives his direction from the sidelines.
While on-court coaching would undoubtedly make for compelling TV, especially should the coaches be hooked up to microphones, it would also bring the sport down from its lofty perch as the only major individual sport, aside from the track and field events, bicycling and swimming (which do not have interruptions and are not so much mental challenges as physical), in which the best athletes are also the best thinkers on their feet. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. But one must also face facts: the most successful players (who also have the largest bank accounts) would be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can by. Talk about stacking the deck!
In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. As it stands today, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, and far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. When coaches are tasked by eager parents to produce winners in young players, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
It is my hope that tennis will remain the true individual sport it was intended to be, and that the guidance of the coach is restricted to the practice court.
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.
Tennis has been compared with boxing and wrestling — sports with great physical and psychological demands — and for good reason. The one-on-one physical and mental combat that is the cornerstone of these sports is the trademark of tennis, also. Yet boxing and wrestling have allowed, indeed have promoted, the presence of qualified coaches and trainers working in the corners of their charges. There is a very good reason for this: boxers and wrestlers are at great risk of sustaining extreme physical trauma every time they step into the ring or onto the mat. Were no coach or trainer present, more athletes would leave the arena with serious injuries, or even on stretchers. Granted, the referees are there in large part to protect the athletes, but between rounds it is the coach and/or trainer who must assess his athlete's ability to continue and the likelihood of his sustaining serious injury should he go on.
Tennis players are not at nearly as great a risk of sustaining severe trauma. And should a player sustain one of the many common injuries during play, such as an ankle strain, ligament or cartilage tear, or severe cramps, heat exhaustion or dehydration, a non-partisan trainer is always waiting in the wings to assist that player. In fact, while the physical demands of tennis are great at the professional level, the risk of permanent or career-ending injury is fairly low. Life-threatening injuries are very rare to non-existent.
Tennis has also been compared to chess, with its multiple strategies and tactical maneuvers. And, while the physical demands of chess are not as great, surely mental stamina plays a large role in a chess master's success. But notice there are no coaches on the sideline helping the chess master to determine his next move or to help him see the deficiencies in his strategy or defense. The chess master is expected to adapt to the circumstances and to figure out on his own the best path to victory.
I believe that thinking for oneself is a cornerstone of the successful and admired tennis player. The successful player is able to think his way out of trouble — to innovate and improvise. He is first and foremost a problem solver, and each match is a test of his abililty to solve the puzzle and then to adapt his tactics in order to execute his new, winning strategy. As soon as a coach is allowed to "enter the ring" and sit beside his charge at the changeovers, call out to him between points, or make hand signals and gestures, the puzzle solver is no longer the guy with the racquet in his hand. The coach becomes the mastermind, and the player is reduced to executioner of the grand plan passed on to him. He's still the quarterback, but he receives his direction from the sidelines.
While on-court coaching would undoubtedly make for compelling TV, especially should the coaches be hooked up to microphones, it would also bring the sport down from its lofty perch as the only major individual sport, aside from the track and field events, bicycling and swimming (which do not have interruptions and are not so much mental challenges as physical), in which the best athletes are also the best thinkers on their feet. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. But one must also face facts: the most successful players (who also have the largest bank accounts) would be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can by. Talk about stacking the deck!
In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. As it stands today, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, and far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. When coaches are tasked by eager parents to produce winners in young players, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.
It is my hope that tennis will remain the true individual sport it was intended to be, and that the guidance of the coach is restricted to the practice court.
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.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
A modest proposal (for the pro game)
What the pro game needs is a shot in the arm of good old-fashioned common sense. Just look at the injury-plagued men's and women's tours, if you don't believe me. Day-in, day-out competition for 44-plus weeks leaves little time for athletes' bodies to adequately heal, let alone invest in root cause analysis and remediation of unsound footwork or stroke production. Then there's the ridiculous scheduling of the Grand Slam events. Show me another major sport in which the athletes compete for a major prize a mere two weeks after coming off a 6- to 8-week hiatus. Tennis does just that by holding the Australian Open in mid-January — smack dab in the heart of the Aussie summer, to boot! Something's got to change, and I propose we start by rethinking the Grand Slam event schedule. Afterall, those are the most coveted prizes in the sport.
An editor with ATP Tennis International's media division once said to me: "It (the Grand Slam schedule) is what it is. Sure, a lot of people would love to start the Autralian Open a little later, and a week extra between the French Open and Wimbledon would be great. You've also got Davis Cup to throw in there. It's a complicated thing." You'll get no argument from me. Which is exactly why we need to SIMPLIFY and UNIFY the tour schedule.
Let's take a look at the current Grand Slam schedule. We start the year off with the Australian in the third and fourth week of January. Seventeen weeks after the last ball has been struck Down Under, Roland Garros (hereafter referred to as the French) commences. Fifteen days after the French champion is crowned, the first ball is struck at The Championships (Wimbledon) in London. Fifteen days! The Slams conclude with the U.S. Open, held seven weeks after Wimbledon and spanning the Labor Day holiday. Freeze frame that, and think about how absurd a schedule it truly is. Make a special note that the last man to win both the French and Wimbledon titles back-to-back was Bjorn Borg in 1980. This fact alone should be cause enough to reconsider the scheduling of the sport's premier events.
Borg's back-to-back titles were an amazing feat that may never happen again, should we continue on our present course. Something must be done about the scheduling of the French and Wimbledon championships, or Wimbledon fans will have to endure many more early-round losses by the French victor, if not pre-match withdrawals.
If you happened to catch Larry King Live a few nights after Andre Agassi bowed to the crowd in his signature way for the final time, you would have heard Andre address a question from a woman caller who asked if he’d consider accepting the role of Commissioner of Tennis. Of course, this idea is not new, as John McEnroe once promoted the idea, half in jest, half in an attempt to elevate himself to the equivalent of a Pete Rozelle. At any rate, Andre wisely said he’d consider such a role only if it were not dangled before him as a token gesture, but really had teeth. (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)
Well, Andre, if you or Johhny Mac should ever become the Commissioner of Tennis, I have a modest proposal for you. I believe the ideal pro tennis season, including the Grand Slam and Davis Cup schedule, should look something like this:
January...
Season opens after New Year's Day with seven weeks of indoor and hardcourt play designed to prepare players for the two-week hardcourt championships Down Under. That would mean the Australian Open would begin the second or third week in February and end the first or second week in March.
7 weeks later (1st week in May)...
After several claycourt events throughout South America and Europe, the French Open should commence. That would place the start at the first week in May and the finale the third week.
7 weeks later (2nd week in July)...
After the French, with a lineup of stellar grasscourt tournaments in the U.S. and Northwestern Europe, hold Wimbledon, beginning the second week in July and wrapping up at the end of the month.
7 weeks later (2nd or 3rd week in September)...
Seven weeks of hardcourt play throughout North America should bring us to New York for the last of the Slams — the U.S. Open — to be held the second and third weeks in September.
Week 37-41 (last week in September through third week in October)...
Thirty-six weeks of Grand Slam Series events will have elapsed, leaving two weeks for the year-end Masters Series championships and two for the Davis and Fed Cup finals, respectively. Four weeks after the last ball is struck at the U.S. Open, draw the curtain and let the players take their bows and go home.
Weeks 42 through 52...
Once the Cup victors are determined, give the players a much needed 10- to 11-week (more than two months) hiatus to mend their bodies, enjoy the holidays like the rest of us, and regroup with their coaches to work out the kinks and learn new tricks.
Consider...
The Australian is held in the suffocating summer swelter Down Under (hence the retractable roof over the stadium court). Heat injuries are common. This is due in part to the absence of competition prior to this first of tennis's Slams, a victory without which none can claim the grandest prize in the sport — the Grand Slam. More time should be allotted to hard court play prior to this pivotal event. Let's move the Australian out five or six weeks to the end of February, and work in several week-long hard court events on America’s west coast as well as throughout the burgeoning Asian markets. An Australian Open Series touring the Pacific Rim would be created, in much the same way as the U.S. Open Series was, which by all accounts has been hugely successful and gives sports fans a reason to watch the smaller events leading up to the Slams. Besides, who's brilliant idea was it to broadcast the Aussie Open during the NFL playoffs?
The next stop, the French, is currently held a full four months after the Australian, when Spring is springing in Paris. That's certainly plenty of time to prepare for the physical demands of the slow red dirt. Fact is, it may be too much time, as players have by then begun to feel the effects of the long and grinding claycourt season in Europe, with the well-established, popular and hotly contested Monte Carlo, German (Hamburg) and Italian Opens (Rome) played as lead-ups to the French. Moving the French up two weeks, to the first week of May, would mean the field of dirtballers would be fresh as tulips. Why continue to compete with Americans’ Memorial Day travels? It just doesn’t make good economic or marketing sense.
This brings us to Wimbledon, which has traditionally been every tennis player's dream prize. Let's push Wimbledon out two weeks, so that the first ball is struck in the second week of July. I ask: Why should Americans' Fourth of July be spoiled by having to watch the British flag wave majestically over the grounds of the All-England Club? And again, many Americans vacation on the Fourth, which means fewer people at home viewing The Championships. We've now gained an additional five weeks between the French and Wimbledon. A total of seven weeks between these two most difficult (and different) challenges — the one a trial of endurance, heart and backcourt skill; the other a test of athleticism, will and frontcourt acumen — would give the late-round contestants at the French time to tune themselves to the speed and unpredictability of the turf. Who knows, maybe we'll yet see another men's Grand Slam champion in our lifetime.
Inserting five additional weeks between the French and Wimbledon championships might also encourage the creation of several new grass court events prior to the Big W. This would give claycourters much needed practice on the tricky stuff and would create a mini-season for the grasscourt game, which I fear is inching toward extinction. Bring back the grass — there's nothing else like it in professional sports today. Can you say “Wimbledon Series”?
With a slight reshuffling of the deck, the Campbell’s Hall of Fame Tennis Championships, currently held each year the week following Wimbledon, could be moved to one of the weeks prior to Wimbledon, if not the week just before. Think of it, Newport, Rhode Island abuzz with the best players in the world moored in that rustic sailing town for a week to determine the Wimbledon favorite. As it is today, none of the biggest names in the game and few in the top-50 come to play on the hallowed lawns where each year a few legends of the game are inducted. What a spectacle it could be, were the Casino to regain some of its former glory. Who knows, the finals and inductions might even fall on the Fourth of July, as the Stars and Stripes proudly waves.
Let's not forget there are two or three other great sites for a grasscourt event on American soil, where TV revenues so greatly impact the solvency of the professional game. Philadelphia has at least three fine lawn tennis clubs that could hold a large event — the U.S. National Championships was won by Bill Tilden at the Germantown Cricket Club. And the Longwood Cricket Club in Boston could still muster up a pro-sized event. I saw Arthur Ashe and others play there in 1968 as a young summer camper in New Hampshire. Then there are the beautiful lawns of Southhampton, New York, out on the Long Island Sound, another site that would draw a sizable and well-heeled crowd.
Finally, we come to the season-ending U.S. Open in New York, an event that inspires every player with a passion for the game and a penchant for the dramatic to play their gutsiest, grittiest best. I would change very little there, except push it off of the Labor Day weekend (same old refrain: travel… vacation…) to the third week in September, when the summer sun is waning and apple-picking season has begun. I'd suggest only that it be made a purely night-time event, ensuring an electric atmosphere and guaranteeing a capacity crowd. Big city, bright lights. Cold beer and hot pretzels. Who could ask for anything more?
So there you have it. Simple, isn't it? Now if only we can find a way to nudge a few Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments over a little to make room for a Slam or two, and perhaps get everyone to agree on a one-week break from play after each Slam.... Andre, a little help please.
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.
An editor with ATP Tennis International's media division once said to me: "It (the Grand Slam schedule) is what it is. Sure, a lot of people would love to start the Autralian Open a little later, and a week extra between the French Open and Wimbledon would be great. You've also got Davis Cup to throw in there. It's a complicated thing." You'll get no argument from me. Which is exactly why we need to SIMPLIFY and UNIFY the tour schedule.
Let's take a look at the current Grand Slam schedule. We start the year off with the Australian in the third and fourth week of January. Seventeen weeks after the last ball has been struck Down Under, Roland Garros (hereafter referred to as the French) commences. Fifteen days after the French champion is crowned, the first ball is struck at The Championships (Wimbledon) in London. Fifteen days! The Slams conclude with the U.S. Open, held seven weeks after Wimbledon and spanning the Labor Day holiday. Freeze frame that, and think about how absurd a schedule it truly is. Make a special note that the last man to win both the French and Wimbledon titles back-to-back was Bjorn Borg in 1980. This fact alone should be cause enough to reconsider the scheduling of the sport's premier events.
Borg's back-to-back titles were an amazing feat that may never happen again, should we continue on our present course. Something must be done about the scheduling of the French and Wimbledon championships, or Wimbledon fans will have to endure many more early-round losses by the French victor, if not pre-match withdrawals.
If you happened to catch Larry King Live a few nights after Andre Agassi bowed to the crowd in his signature way for the final time, you would have heard Andre address a question from a woman caller who asked if he’d consider accepting the role of Commissioner of Tennis. Of course, this idea is not new, as John McEnroe once promoted the idea, half in jest, half in an attempt to elevate himself to the equivalent of a Pete Rozelle. At any rate, Andre wisely said he’d consider such a role only if it were not dangled before him as a token gesture, but really had teeth. (Read a transcript of the Andre Agassi interview on CNN's Larry King Live.)
Well, Andre, if you or Johhny Mac should ever become the Commissioner of Tennis, I have a modest proposal for you. I believe the ideal pro tennis season, including the Grand Slam and Davis Cup schedule, should look something like this:
January...
Season opens after New Year's Day with seven weeks of indoor and hardcourt play designed to prepare players for the two-week hardcourt championships Down Under. That would mean the Australian Open would begin the second or third week in February and end the first or second week in March.
7 weeks later (1st week in May)...
After several claycourt events throughout South America and Europe, the French Open should commence. That would place the start at the first week in May and the finale the third week.
7 weeks later (2nd week in July)...
After the French, with a lineup of stellar grasscourt tournaments in the U.S. and Northwestern Europe, hold Wimbledon, beginning the second week in July and wrapping up at the end of the month.
7 weeks later (2nd or 3rd week in September)...
Seven weeks of hardcourt play throughout North America should bring us to New York for the last of the Slams — the U.S. Open — to be held the second and third weeks in September.
Week 37-41 (last week in September through third week in October)...
Thirty-six weeks of Grand Slam Series events will have elapsed, leaving two weeks for the year-end Masters Series championships and two for the Davis and Fed Cup finals, respectively. Four weeks after the last ball is struck at the U.S. Open, draw the curtain and let the players take their bows and go home.
Weeks 42 through 52...
Once the Cup victors are determined, give the players a much needed 10- to 11-week (more than two months) hiatus to mend their bodies, enjoy the holidays like the rest of us, and regroup with their coaches to work out the kinks and learn new tricks.
Consider...
The Australian is held in the suffocating summer swelter Down Under (hence the retractable roof over the stadium court). Heat injuries are common. This is due in part to the absence of competition prior to this first of tennis's Slams, a victory without which none can claim the grandest prize in the sport — the Grand Slam. More time should be allotted to hard court play prior to this pivotal event. Let's move the Australian out five or six weeks to the end of February, and work in several week-long hard court events on America’s west coast as well as throughout the burgeoning Asian markets. An Australian Open Series touring the Pacific Rim would be created, in much the same way as the U.S. Open Series was, which by all accounts has been hugely successful and gives sports fans a reason to watch the smaller events leading up to the Slams. Besides, who's brilliant idea was it to broadcast the Aussie Open during the NFL playoffs?
The next stop, the French, is currently held a full four months after the Australian, when Spring is springing in Paris. That's certainly plenty of time to prepare for the physical demands of the slow red dirt. Fact is, it may be too much time, as players have by then begun to feel the effects of the long and grinding claycourt season in Europe, with the well-established, popular and hotly contested Monte Carlo, German (Hamburg) and Italian Opens (Rome) played as lead-ups to the French. Moving the French up two weeks, to the first week of May, would mean the field of dirtballers would be fresh as tulips. Why continue to compete with Americans’ Memorial Day travels? It just doesn’t make good economic or marketing sense.
This brings us to Wimbledon, which has traditionally been every tennis player's dream prize. Let's push Wimbledon out two weeks, so that the first ball is struck in the second week of July. I ask: Why should Americans' Fourth of July be spoiled by having to watch the British flag wave majestically over the grounds of the All-England Club? And again, many Americans vacation on the Fourth, which means fewer people at home viewing The Championships. We've now gained an additional five weeks between the French and Wimbledon. A total of seven weeks between these two most difficult (and different) challenges — the one a trial of endurance, heart and backcourt skill; the other a test of athleticism, will and frontcourt acumen — would give the late-round contestants at the French time to tune themselves to the speed and unpredictability of the turf. Who knows, maybe we'll yet see another men's Grand Slam champion in our lifetime.
Inserting five additional weeks between the French and Wimbledon championships might also encourage the creation of several new grass court events prior to the Big W. This would give claycourters much needed practice on the tricky stuff and would create a mini-season for the grasscourt game, which I fear is inching toward extinction. Bring back the grass — there's nothing else like it in professional sports today. Can you say “Wimbledon Series”?
With a slight reshuffling of the deck, the Campbell’s Hall of Fame Tennis Championships, currently held each year the week following Wimbledon, could be moved to one of the weeks prior to Wimbledon, if not the week just before. Think of it, Newport, Rhode Island abuzz with the best players in the world moored in that rustic sailing town for a week to determine the Wimbledon favorite. As it is today, none of the biggest names in the game and few in the top-50 come to play on the hallowed lawns where each year a few legends of the game are inducted. What a spectacle it could be, were the Casino to regain some of its former glory. Who knows, the finals and inductions might even fall on the Fourth of July, as the Stars and Stripes proudly waves.
Let's not forget there are two or three other great sites for a grasscourt event on American soil, where TV revenues so greatly impact the solvency of the professional game. Philadelphia has at least three fine lawn tennis clubs that could hold a large event — the U.S. National Championships was won by Bill Tilden at the Germantown Cricket Club. And the Longwood Cricket Club in Boston could still muster up a pro-sized event. I saw Arthur Ashe and others play there in 1968 as a young summer camper in New Hampshire. Then there are the beautiful lawns of Southhampton, New York, out on the Long Island Sound, another site that would draw a sizable and well-heeled crowd.
Finally, we come to the season-ending U.S. Open in New York, an event that inspires every player with a passion for the game and a penchant for the dramatic to play their gutsiest, grittiest best. I would change very little there, except push it off of the Labor Day weekend (same old refrain: travel… vacation…) to the third week in September, when the summer sun is waning and apple-picking season has begun. I'd suggest only that it be made a purely night-time event, ensuring an electric atmosphere and guaranteeing a capacity crowd. Big city, bright lights. Cold beer and hot pretzels. Who could ask for anything more?
So there you have it. Simple, isn't it? Now if only we can find a way to nudge a few Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments over a little to make room for a Slam or two, and perhaps get everyone to agree on a one-week break from play after each Slam.... Andre, a little help please.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
