Jessica02, I agree with you about Martina and the Australian Open. It's a little different pace at Slams, where you only play a singles match every 2 days or so.
For those of you who say improved scheduling won't motivate top players because they already get enough money from singles, explain this to me:
Why did Monica enter doubles this week? She doesn't need the money, and it could certainly hurt her singles chances. If they had won another doubles match, it would have been an absolute disaster for her, fatigue-wise.
Why do the Williams sisters occasionally enter doubles in the Slams, win a few rounds, then withdraw to keep themselves fresh for singles? Do you think they are sufficiently strapped for cash that they need to split a doubles QF purse to stay solvent?
Top players either play doubles for the money or play it because they are competitors who like to win in as many different disciplines as possible. Current scheduling discourages that.
OK, I may have been mistaken. Monica's doubles match on Thursday might have been 2nd round. Still, if she had gone to both Finals she would have been playing 3 doubles and 4 singles matches in 4 days. If this was an outdoor tournament with the possibility of matches being postponed a day for rain, it would be lunacy.
All it would take is a directive that when singles matches on the same round are played on 2 different days, players entered in doubles should be prioritized to the 1st day, with seeded singles players prioritized ahead of non-seeded. Until then the best singles players will see doubles as a risky diversion, which even Martina, crazy about doubles, did last year.