Across the Net 2.04.08: How to Best Reorganize the Tennis Season

Posted by ikabod Crane on 02.04.2008

From a short 6 week layoff to fitting Davis and Federation Cup play into a nearly 11 month schedule, Tennis could use some tinkering. Olympic years such as 2008 only make the schedule more hectic.

Players of the Week:

World #16 Fernando Gonzalez won the first clay court event of 2008 in his native Chile. Gonzo saved two match points in the semifinals and took the match 6-7, 7-6, 6-2. He won the title by walkover due to an injury sustained by world #14 Juan Monaco in the doubles draw. The Argentine has had a fine previous 12 months on tour and should be commended for playing doubles. Novak Djokovic was honored in Serbia for his Australian Open win. Let's hope they did not give him a milking cow like Switzerland gave Federer after his first Wimbledon title.

Fixing Tennis' Crazy Season

Tennis is enjoying a mini-boom. Roger Federer is the type of number one and nice guy who has won worldwide fan support even if Sports Illustrated will never admit this. Rafael Nadal plays the type of gritty tennis which appeals to many fans. Novak Djokovic has talent and charisma. Maria Sharapova leads a field of marketable stars on the WTA Tour. I am not a fan of marketing women's tennis based upon sex appeal, but the WTA was happy with the Australian Open final between Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic. If Andy Roddick and James Blake were a little stronger threats to win Grand Slams, tennis might be enjoying a renaissance within the United States. Either way, the sport has benefited from HD broadcasting, better camera work, all court players such as Justine Henin, Djokovic and Federer and maybe even the Nintendo Wii. So, tennis does not need large scale repairs and is not dying as journalists cried about in the 1990's.

Tennis fans should be happy that Brad Gilbert's idea for a shot clock between serves never went through. Volleyball was supposed to be the next big sport in the late 1980's, but constant changes in rules (you can hit a volleyball with your feet????) and in how to keep score ruined volleyball's chance at the big time in my estimation. Tennis should keep its rules and crazy 15, 30, 40, deuce, game, set and match scoring system in place. Tennis does however need to tweak its schedule. Large recommendations of killing Federation Cup and Davis Cup are likely to never occur even if South Florida's Maria Sharapova proudly represents Mother Russia this year for the first time in Federation Cup play simply so she can play in the Olympics. When Andy Roddick who lives in Texas beat Dmitry Tursunov of Southern California in the Davis Cup final last year, I had to wonder what if any national pride was on the line. However, let me assume Davis Cup and Fed Cup are sacred cows that cannot be killed or even turned into every other year events similar to the Ryder Cup. Here is how I would change the tennis schedule.

Extend the Off Season from 6 to 8 Weeks, but Push the Australian Open back by 2 More Weeks

Pushing the Australian Open back by four weeks and would allow for players to work through rust and become match tough prior to playing Down Under. Also, Asia is a major area of growth for tennis so having 4 weeks of tune up events in Asia, New Zealand and Australia could only help grow the sport. Finally, by placing the Australian Open after the Super Bowl and before the Masters and NCAA tournament, tennis would have a nice niche for late night U.S. sports viewing. Insomniacs in the U.S. could enjoy the day sessions of the Australian Open without wondering how to bet the Super Bowl either.

Place 4 Weeks between the French Open and Wimbledon and Push the U.S. Open Back by 2 Weeks

The current two week break between the French Open and Wimbledon is as quaint as it is insane. Many clay court players in the 1990's simply skipped Wimbledon to focus on a summer clay court circuit and the U.S. Open. Then world #1, Ivan Lendl skipped the French Open in 1990 in order to focus on getting his grass court legs under him. Roger Federer chose not to defend his grass court Halle Title in 2007 due to reaching the French Open final. In short, it takes mental effort to amp up for a Grand Slam event. It also takes time to simmer down after one ends. Switching from clay to grass in as little as 48 hours is silly and often leads to Federer skipping Halle in 2007 or Nadal defaulting due to injury at Queen's Club in 2006. A 4 week break would allow for players who play well in Paris to take one week off. It would allow for more grass court tournaments. It would also allow for the Hall of Fame Classic in Newport, RI to mean something. Newport could take its place next to Queen's Club and Halle as one of the premier grass court tune-up events. As it stands now Newport, is a complete afterthought for elite and semi-elite players.

Pushing the U.S. Open back by two weeks would allow for tennis crazy U.S. cities such as Atlanta to host an event leading into the U.S. Open. Similarly, the Canadian Open and Cincinnati should be spaced out by one or two weeks. Roddick and Patrick Rafter managed to win both events and the U.S. Open, but most top pros when faced with the option of winning 10 two out of three set hard court matches over 14 days simply balk because of not wanting to hurt their U.S. Open chances. To give credit to Roddick and Rafter they each won 12 matches over 14 days prior to winning the U.S. Open in 2003 and 1998 respectively.

Offer Ranking Point Incentives for Playing on the Preferred Surface

There should be a logical build up in tennis where the Grand Slam event caps of a leg of the tour. The Australian Open as it currently falls kicks off the season rather than capping off a leg of hard court tennis. The French Open logically concludes a string of clay court events including venerable tournaments in Rome and Monte Carlo. Wimbledon does not really cap off a lengthy grass court season, but it could be more effective at doing so if 4 weeks of grass court events fell between Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Finally, clay court events throughout Europe after Wimbledon detract from any logical narrative the tour could provide.

The U.S. Open Series has tried to create a hard court narrative, but bonus money is not doing the trick. Too many top players avoid or tank out of hard court events leading into the U.S. Open. My proposal is as follows:

I. January 1 – Australian Open – Hard Court Preferred
II. From the Close of the Australian Open to the End of Key Biscayne/Miami – Any Surface
III. From Miami-French Open – Clay Court Preferred
IV. Post French Open – Grass Court Preferred
V. Post Wimbledon – Hard Court Preferred
VI. Post U.S. Open – Any Surface

A Preferred Surface Event would award full ranking points to the participants. If a clay court event is taking place four weeks before the U.S. Open, the participants can receive all of the prize money they want, but the tournament winner would receive 50% of the ranking points that the winner of the hard court event held during the same week receives. Therefore, if Tommy Robredo wins Gstaad on clay the same week Fernando Gonzalez wins Indianapolis on a hard court, Gonzo would be rewarded in the world rankings for playing on the featured or preferred surface. Similarly, if Andy Roddick goes to Asia to play indoor events after Miami, his ranking points should not equal those of a player engaging in the clay court circuit prior to the French Open. Green clay events held in the U.S. could perhaps be penalized in an attempt to protect the European and South American red clay court events. In all honesty, playing John Isner on green clay in Florida does not prepare a player for the French Open in the same fashion that playing Nicholas Almagro on red clay in Portugal does.

If having surface preferences is untenable, perhaps seeding the Grand Slams in a similar manner that Wimbledon does would work. The U.S. and Australian Opens could count a player's hard court results over the previous 52 weeks for 125% of their value in the computer ranking. Similarly, the French Open could count red clay court results over the previous 52 weeks at 125% of their value with green clay events being counted at their normal value. This would help avoid a situation where Andy Roddick was the #2 seed at the 2005 French Open which forced Nadal and Federer to play in the semifinal round. Some allowance for surface acumen should be in the books. Motivating a player by impacting his or her ranking and seeding seems far more effective than offering U.S. Open Series bonus money.

Olympics?

Does tennis need the Olympics? I do not think it does. Tennis is already one of the most international sports. Aside from soccer, I cannot think of a sport contested in more venues. Unlike soccer, if a nation has a single good player it can be relevant in tennis. Marcos Baghdatis is from Cyprus and is ranked #17 in the world. Ecuador's Andres Gomez won the French Open in 1990. Serbia has world #3 Novak Djokovic on the men's tour and world #4 Jelena Jankovic and #2 Ana Ivanovic on the women's tour. Finland's Jarkko Niemenin reached the final 8 of the Australian Open. Family members Byron, Wayne, and Cara Black made tennis relevant in Zimbabwe in the 1990's. Tennis does not need the Olympics to bring the best in the world together. The Olympics make what is already a nearly 11 month season even longer. Finally, with Davis Cup, Federation Cup, Hopman Cup and World Team Cup, tennis already has nation vs. nation action. Tennis needs to cancel Davis Cup and Federation Cup competition during Olympic years if the Olympics is going to be part of the tennis calendar. Doing so would alleviate congestion in the schedule and perhaps make both events more important. With a few adjustments, the tennis season could be shorter for players and more compelling for fans.