PDA

View Full Version : How 'bout a grass court Tier I event?


Jachal
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Now that Eastbourne is gonna be a joint event, I started wondering, why the heck there's no grass-court Tier I event?

We've got so many big events played on hard-courts, why not go back to the roots and play more on grass?

roelc
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:17 AM
because it's the week before a GS
if there would be 3 weeks between RG and wimbledon, and eastbourne was put in the middle, I'd agree

AcesHigh
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:21 AM
They should expand the grasscourt season IMO. It would make it easier for players to adjust to Wimbledon.. which they should then make faster. Too many hardcourt tournaments make the game monotonous(sp?) and reward a one-dimensional game for all surfaces.

VeeJJ
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:28 AM
I agree. their should be some grass teir 1's. Even clay courts have 3 and not even one for grass. this should be changed.

jujufreak
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:31 AM
They should expand the grasscourt season IMO. It would make it easier for players to adjust to Wimbledon.. which they should then make faster. Too many hardcourt tournaments make the game monotonous(sp?) and reward a one-dimensional game for all surfaces.

so true... :yeah:

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:34 AM
I agree. their should be some grass teir 1's. Even clay courts have 3 and not even one for grass. this should be changed.


"some grass Tier 1's"? So you want to have several of them??

And what does "even clay courts have 3" mean, please? :rolleyes:

Robert-KimClijst
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:37 AM
They need to cut some of the clay season and add some for the grass. No other sport in the world makes a transition that difficult.

You can't have a Tier 1 a week before a grand slam. They need 1 or 2 more weeks for grass.

Kworb
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:38 AM
Grass is the least interesting surface, there are already too many grass tournaments.

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:42 AM
Grass is the least interesting surface, there are already too many grass tournaments.


If you find it interesting or not (I can definatley see why some people could find grass court tennis interesting), it is "outdated" IMO. A relict of the past basically.

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:42 AM
I've been saying this for years :lol: it would add symmetry to the season :shrug:

even if they put the grass Tier I after Wimbledon, it just seems weird to have MULTIPLE Masters Events on every surface except grass :shrug:

jujufreak
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:44 AM
They need to cut some of the clay season and add some for the grass. No other sport in the world makes a transition that difficult.

You can't have a Tier 1 a week before a grand slam. They need 1 or 2 more weeks for grass.

there are already few clay court tournies, compared to the hard court season.

Put Indian Wells with the Californian summer tournies and organise LA and Stanford during the same week and we have a spare week for a grass tennis tournament :cool:

Morrissey
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:44 AM
I am not so sure. I think the beauty of the French Open and Wimbledon is the short turn around time the players have. The players really don't have much time to transition between clay and grass.Also, the weather in England is so unpredictable a longer grass court season could be disaster. i mean look at Wimbledon every single year it rains a lot. I think the system is just fine. I do think the clay court season could be a bit longer.

The Daviator
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:45 AM
Grass is the least interesting surface, there are already too many grass tournaments.

For WTA, it's not, Wimbledon has been the best Slam for the past 3/4 years.

ATP, it's awful though :o

AcesHigh
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:50 AM
For WTA, it's not, Wimbledon has been the best Slam for the past 3/4 years.

ATP, it's awful though :o

Ever since they slowed it down, it's been awful. Some of the greatest matches of all time have been on grass.

I'm still waiting for the day that grass becomes slower than clay.. it's disgusting how much the surface has changed. Serve-fests are not good for the sport, granted.. but neither are slugfests or grinding claycourters on grass.

Dav.
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:54 AM
Having fewer tournaments and less large ones keeps Wimbledon and the grass season feeling more prestigious. If more tournaments were added, grass would start to lose it's exclusive-feel. I do think bumping up the status of Eastbourne is a good idea, though.

PLP
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:18 AM
I think it's tragic that there are only 2 or 3 grass tournaments every year now...it wasn't that long ago...well, I am too tired to go into a history lesson, but the poeple in charge need to axe the grass (which would be terrible) or at least give some more time to that part of the season, for the benefit of the PLAYERS who have little to no time on the surface before Wimbledon...and what about the 'carpet' season, which is now mainly indoor hardcourts? Does everything need to be played on a hardcourt now?

The tour should:

Give the grass a season a few more tournaments, perhaps 6 weeks for the season?
Do NOT shorten the clay season for this, but shorten one of the many Hardcourt parts of the season.
Have at least 6 important events played on a true carpet, especially leading up to the championships, which DOES NOT need to be played on another f-ing Hardcourt. :angel:

Lunaris
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:20 AM
AcesHigh usually talks bullshit, this time he's right however. Just expand the grasscourt season and make a grasscourt Tier I. Too many tournaments are played on synthetic surfaces, it's getting monotonous. Grass is hard to keep in a good shape, it costs some additional money but I am sure it would be possible.

Dave.
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:21 AM
I don't want to see any more grasscourt tennis until the courts are sped up again. Wimbledon is awful. Yes we have had some good matches there in recent years but it's not grasscourt tennis! It's being played on a hardcourt. All the commentators say the longer rallies are great and everything, but we tennis fans get the same thing the other 48 weeks of the year!! It's so annoying. Bring back the fast courts and make players either learn how to volley, or be able to survive from the baseline on a real fast court.

PLP
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:21 AM
I am not so sure. I think the beauty of the French Open and Wimbledon is the short turn around time the players have. The players really don't have much time to transition between clay and grass.Also, the weather in England is so unpredictable a longer grass court season could be disaster. i mean look at Wimbledon every single year it rains a lot. I think the system is just fine. I do think the clay court season could be a bit longer.

Yes, but it is going to rain anyway, LOL. I am not convinced there is nothing that can be done here...it just seems that whoever is in charge wants to eventually have everything played on Hardcourts, that has been the steady progression.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:25 AM
there are already few clay court tournies, compared to the hard court season.

Put Indian Wells with the Californian summer tournies and organise LA and Stanford during the same week and we have a spare week for a grass tennis tournament :cool:

In a perfect world...

Do Away With:
1. A week of the AO tuneups. They all suck except for Sydney.
2. Paris, Pattaya, Antwerp, and that tourney in Chile.
(there's 3 weeks)

Move UP
1. Indian Wells
2. Miami
3. Barcelona and Budapest (and Palermo, I guess)

Move Back
1. The AO
2. Wimbledon

Add
1. 1 week of grasscourt tennis, middle week becomes a tier1. Some of the best grasscourt players on earth only play one event per year. That's silly.


All of this surface hopping is just silly. Playing claycourt events after wimbledon and before the hardcourt and indoor season is silly. The season should start off on the universal surfaces-- like the slow hardcourts and plexicushion. Then there should be some green clay, some red eauro clay, and then a hearty grass season, and then hardcourts and carpet.

AcesHigh
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:27 AM
AcesHigh usually talks bullshit
:lol: Thanks.. I'd say something but I don't remember anything you've said. :wavey:

Golovinjured.
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:38 AM
If it weren't for Wimbledon I think grass wouldn't be apart of the WTA tour anymore, which is tragic in my opinion. Wimbledon won't change from grass I don't think, so the WTA should be more interested in grass court tournaments and should expand the grass season by atleast 2 weeks, and should include a Tier 1 event.

Tier III Birmingham/Tier IV Barcelona (1 week)
Tier I ___________ (2 weeks)
Tier II Eastbourne/Tier III 's-Hertogenbosch (1 week)
Wimbledon (2 weeks)

One week before Roland Garros somewhere could be removed (Bangalore) and one week after Wimbledon could be removed, according to the 2008 schedule anyway..

That's how I think it should be :) I'd hate to see grass disappear :sad:

Nicolás89
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:40 AM
In a perfect world...

No, what you have said is, "I would enjoy life again if....".
That's not a perfect world.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:41 AM
No, what you have said is, "I would enjoy life again if....".
That's not a perfect world.

Haha, you're right. My perfect world would have this too though.

Renalicious
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:43 AM
No I disagree. I like how there's no big warm up to Wimbledon. I like it. It's harder to win both in a row. That's why Justine hasn't won it.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:44 AM
I personally am not a HUGE fan of grasscourt tennis itself, but it's just so sad that it only gets a month...

There are so many wasted weeks on the WTA tour, and the most exciting (or traditional, prestigious) part of the tennis year is slammed into 6 weeks (RG-WIM).

Lunaris
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:44 AM
:lol: Thanks.. I'd say something but I don't remember anything you've said. :wavey:
Oh, don't take it so hard. Usually I enjoy reading your posts, despite that I don't agree with most of its content. But that's ok, it would be a boring world if all people shared the same opinions.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:46 AM
No I disagree. I like how there's no big warm up to Wimbledon. I like it. It's harder to win both in a row. That's why Justine hasn't won it.

Does making it a lot harder to win make it any better though? They could move the US Open to a public park in the Bronx. Would that make it better?

CrossCourt~Rally
Apr 12th, 2008, 01:51 AM
They should expand the grasscourt season IMO. It would make it easier for players to adjust to Wimbledon.. which they should then make faster. Too many hardcourt tournaments make the game monotonous(sp?) and reward a one-dimensional game for all surfaces.

I 100% agree with this. It makes no sense to have such a weak and short "warm up" period to prepare for the most prestigious ( imo ) tourney in tennis.:)

jujufreak
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:20 AM
In a perfect world...

Do Away With:
1. A week of the AO tuneups. They all suck except for Sydney.
2. Paris, Pattaya, Antwerp, and that tourney in Chile.
(there's 3 weeks)

Move UP
1. Indian Wells
2. Miami
3. Barcelona and Budapest (and Palermo, I guess)

Move Back
1. The AO
2. Wimbledon

Add
1. 1 week of grasscourt tennis, middle week becomes a tier1. Some of the best grasscourt players on earth only play one event per year. That's silly.


All of this surface hopping is just silly. Playing claycourt events after wimbledon and before the hardcourt and indoor season is silly. The season should start off on the universal surfaces-- like the slow hardcourts and plexicushion. Then there should be some green clay, some red eauro clay, and then a hearty grass season, and then hardcourts and carpet.

:yeah:

you should apply for a job as WTA Tour advisor :cool:;)

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:27 AM
In a perfect world...

Do Away With:
1. A week of the AO tuneups. They all suck except for Sydney.
2. Paris, Pattaya, Antwerp, and that tourney in Chile.
(there's 3 weeks)

Move UP
1. Indian Wells
2. Miami
3. Barcelona and Budapest (and Palermo, I guess)

Move Back
1. The AO
2. Wimbledon

Add
1. 1 week of grasscourt tennis, middle week becomes a tier1. Some of the best grasscourt players on earth only play one event per year. That's silly.


All of this surface hopping is just silly. Playing claycourt events after wimbledon and before the hardcourt and indoor season is silly. The season should start off on the universal surfaces-- like the slow hardcourts and plexicushion. Then there should be some green clay, some red eauro clay, and then a hearty grass season, and then hardcourts and carpet.

Yeah - good luck with that!

AcesHigh
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:27 AM
Oh, don't take it so hard. Usually I enjoy reading your posts, despite that I don't agree with most of its content. But that's ok, it would be a boring world if all people shared the same opinions.

I don't mind if anyone dislikes my posts.. it would be boring if we all agreed. As long as no one is giving stupid personal attacks, it's all fine by me.

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:30 AM
:yeah:

you should apply for a job as WTA Tour advisor :cool:;)

Oh god no! He wants to expand the grass court season, yet make the warm ups for the AO a week less (which only has 2 weeks already). :help:

But I do think the grass season could do with 1-2 more weeks.

darrinbaker00
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:35 AM
Now that Eastbourne is gonna be a joint event, I started wondering, why the heck there's no grass-court Tier I event?

We've got so many big events played on hard-courts, why not go back to the roots and play more on grass?
When and where would you have them?

Expat
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:38 AM
i dont need more tier I tournaments
i want a real grass court tournament at wimbledon with a fast surface like the one at eastbourne

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:40 AM
Oh god no! He wants to expand the grass court season, yet make the warm ups for the AO a week less (which only has 2 weeks already). :help:

But I do think the grass season could do with 1-2 more weeks.

Pay attention-- Indian Wells and Miami (slow hardcourts) would be warmups for the Australian Open. Those tournaments would be moved up and the AO would be moved back.

We don't need a month of crappy tennis in Australia.

And yes I realize this would never happen.

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:55 AM
Pay attention-- Indian Wells and Miami (slow hardcourts) would be warmups for the Australian Open. Those tournaments would be moved up and the AO would be moved back.

We don't need a month of crappy tennis in Australia.

And yes I realize this would never happen.

Oh, I'm sorry - please show me WHERE in your original post you made it 100% clear that you wanted to have IW and Miami as warm ups for the AO. :help:

And yeah, fantastic idea to have 2 mandatory tourneys as warm ups for the AO! :yeah:

Just because YOU think all the other tourneys in (and around - NZ isn't IN Australia) are crappy, doesn't mean everyone does. Auckland is a pretty damn good event, and lots of plays like it too.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 03:14 AM
Oh, I'm sorry - please show me WHERE in your original post you made it 100% clear that you wanted to have IW and Miami as warm ups for the AO. :help:

And yeah, fantastic idea to have 2 mandatory tourneys as warm ups for the AO! :yeah:

Just because YOU think all the other tourneys in (and around - NZ isn't IN Australia) are crappy, doesn't mean everyone does. Auckland is a pretty damn good event, and lots of plays like it too.

:weirdo: Why would they be moved up if not to prepare players for the hardcourt major? People have been talking about doing this for years to avoid the 100 DegF temperatures in Australia and the temperate weather in Indian Wells and Miami that would be unaffected by moving the events up in the schedule.
I know NZ isn't in Australia, and I said to eliminate half those events, none specifically. Those tournaments only do well because players are desperate to acclimate to conditions that could be alleviated by moving the AO back in the first place.

2 mandatory events before the AO-- problematic? IW isn't mandatory for the women. The men have like 5 mandatory events between AO and RG. They would only have 3 if IW and Miami were tuneups for the AO. What's your argument?

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 03:25 AM
:weirdo: Why would they be moved up if not to prepare players for the hardcourt major? People have been talking about doing this for years to avoid the 100 DegF temperatures in Australia and the temperate weather in Indian Wells and Miami that would be unaffected by moving the events up in the schedule.
I know NZ isn't in Australia, and I said to eliminate half those events, none specifically. Those tournaments only do well because players are desperate to acclimate to conditions that could be alleviated by moving the AO back in the first place.

2 mandatory events before the AO-- problematic? IW isn't mandatory for the women. The men have like 5 mandatory events between AO and RG. They would only have 3 if IW and Miami were tuneups for the AO. What's your argument?

:weirdo: Yeah, people may have been talking about it, but you didn't actually say that was the plan you had in your original post. Sorry - I dunno what 100F is - I'm Aussie, I use celcius. But this years AO was not that bad temp wise - we only had one massively hot day during quallies, and Feb is no better than January anyway.

I know you didn't mention a specific tourney to get rid of in Australia - you just basically said all except Sydney. I was just pointing out that players do like other tourneys. BTW, Gold Coast is never that bad a tourney either (but it's being moved to Brisbane now). :shrug:

Umm for someone who seems to make out they know what the best schedule would be, you don't seem to know much - as of next year IW IS mandatory for the women - so YES problematic to have IW & Miami before the AO! :weirdo: Would be a better idea if they put Doha/Dubai before the AO as warm ups and still had a couple of other tourneys in Australia beforehand (over 3 weeks, inc Doha/Dubai) and push AO back a couple of weeks - but not to go to the US, then to Australia, then to UAE, then back to US for a couple of crappy green clay tourneys that aren't relevant to anything. Then they could move the clay season a couple of weeks earlier and create a couple of weeks extra between FO and Wimby.

About the only thing I agree with is getting rid of clay tourneys after Wimby - I have been saying that for a while.

PLP
Apr 12th, 2008, 03:38 AM
:weirdo: Yeah, people may have been talking about it, but you didn't actually say that was the plan you had in your original post. Sorry - I dunno what 100F is - I'm Aussie, I use celcius. But this years AO was not that bad temp wise - we only had one massively hot day during quallies, and Feb is no better than January anyway.

I know you didn't mention a specific tourney to get rid of in Australia - you just basically said all except Sydney. I was just pointing out that players do like other tourneys. BTW, Gold Coast is never that bad a tourney either (but it's being moved to Brisbane now). :shrug:

Umm for someone who seems to make out they know what the best schedule would be, you don't seem to know much - as of next year IW IS mandatory for the women - so YES problematic to have IW & Miami before the AO! :weirdo: Would be a better idea if they put Doha/Dubai before the AO as warm ups and still had a couple of other tourneys in Australia beforehand (over 3 weeks, inc Doha/Dubai) and push AO back a couple of weeks - but not to go to the US, then to Australia, then to UAE, then back to US for a couple of crappy green clay tourneys that aren't relevant to anything. Then they could move the clay season a couple of weeks earlier and create a couple of weeks extra between FO and Wimby.

About the only thing I agree with is getting rid of clay tourneys after Wimby - I have been saying that for a while.

I think Goldcoast was a great tournament actually!

I wonder what will happen in Brisbane?

Volcana
Apr 12th, 2008, 03:58 AM
There's no grass court Tier I because Wimbledon and ROland Garros have there head up their asses. And once your head has been up therefor a hundred years, the shit solidifies.

Make Roland Garros a week earlier, makeWimbledon a week later, make Eastbourne the grass court TierI.

mankind
Apr 12th, 2008, 04:01 AM
Eastbourne is the only event which could become a Tier I, but seeing as it's the week before Wimbledon, it's not going to happen. They can't really bump up Birmingham from a Tier III to a Tier I.

InsideOut.
Apr 12th, 2008, 04:38 AM
I am not so sure. I think the beauty of the French Open and Wimbledon is the short turn around time the players have. The players really don't have much time to transition between clay and grass.Also, the weather in England is so unpredictable a longer grass court season could be disaster. i mean look at Wimbledon every single year it rains a lot. I think the system is just fine. I do think the clay court season could be a bit longer.

Neither Rosmalen or Halle are in England. And there are grass court tournies there. :wavey:

IMO they should cut Indian Wells down to one week; and turn Doha, Dubai, Singapore (I heard there's going to be a tourney there?) into AO warm-ups with Sydney, Gold Coast and Auckland. Then extend the grasscourt season. It can actually continue after Wimbledon...right? Newport...

AcesHigh
Apr 12th, 2008, 04:42 AM
A lot of ideas here make sense. Push AO back.. make RG earlier, cut IW into one week and move it somewhere else like during the summer hardcourt seasons which makes sense. Push Wimbledon back a week or two and we're set :) Also, make YEC earlier to shorten the season and I think the schedule would be a lot better.

OsloErik
Apr 12th, 2008, 05:09 AM
I have long thought that the women's and men's seasons should be scheduled more in-sync, and that the best way to do that is to create a Masters Series system with slightly lest rigidity. Get rid of these week-and-a-half tournaments that eat up March, turning all of them into 56 player draws. To give players more options, have 9 events of equal stature, and your best 6 or 7 (that's a reasonable amount, no?) go on record. That way, no tournament besides the slams is mandatory, but it's in your best interest to compete in them. Also, it would come close to guaranteeing select fields and top-level competition. The events would be joint events, would be a mixture of surfaces, and would be spaced better throughout the year.

SO, there'd be

Middle East (switch between Doha and Dubai, with the other used as a warm-up tournament)
Indian Wells
Miami
Charleston (giving the men a green clay tournament)
Germany (switch between Hamburg and Berlin)
Rome
Eastbourne
Canada (switch between Montreal and Toronto)
Moscow

Paris already has a slam, so they don't really need another huge event, and I'd ax Cincinnati because the USA isn't quite deserving of 5 of the biggest tournaments in the world anymore. In their place, I'd put a carpet event in Russia, which has been a tennis titan for 10 years and looks like it will be for a while. The Middle East is a sticky point for me personally because if the tour was willing to boycott apartheid South Africa, they should be willing to boycott anti-Semitic countries as well, but there's no way to deny that the money is HUGE in the Middle East.

This way, their would be:
4 hardcourts (Middle East, Indian Wells, Miami, Canada)
2 red clay (Germany, Rome)
1 green clay (Charleston
1 grass (Eastbourne)
1 carpet (Moscow)

This way, there's no favoritism towards one surface or the other. Any more on any surface and it starts looking a little slanted in my opinion.

darrinbaker00
Apr 12th, 2008, 05:14 AM
I am not so sure. I think the beauty of the French Open and Wimbledon is the short turn around time the players have. The players really don't have much time to transition between clay and grass.Also, the weather in England is so unpredictable a longer grass court season could be disaster. i mean look at Wimbledon every single year it rains a lot. I think the system is just fine. I do think the clay court season could be a bit longer.
You may want to bookmark this post, ladies and gentlemen. Morrissey actually made sense. :eek:

OsloErik
Apr 12th, 2008, 05:22 AM
A lot of ideas here make sense. Push AO back.. make RG earlier, cut IW into one week and move it somewhere else like during the summer hardcourt seasons which makes sense. Push Wimbledon back a week or two and we're set :) Also, make YEC earlier to shorten the season and I think the schedule would be a lot better.

I'm in favor of cutting IW and Miami to 1 week events, and having all Tier I's have standard draws. As it is, there are something like 4 classes of Tier I's and it's too confusing.

I think there's a lot of dead time in the fall, too. There are three weeks in September when the only non-Fed Cup play is in Asia. I'd prefer having a Euro-route (Tier II's) and an Asian-route (Tier III's and IV's) running at the same time. You could trim the calendar two weeks by having:

Fed Cup Final, Bali
Stuttgart, Beijing, Tashkent
Moscow, Guangzhou,
Zurich, Kolkata
Linz, Tokyo
Luxembourg, Seoul

and cut Quebec City in favor of a combined men's and women's event at Montreal/Toronto during the US Open series.

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 05:50 AM
:weirdo: Yeah, people may have been talking about it, but you didn't actually say that was the plan you had in your original post. Sorry - I dunno what 100F is - I'm Aussie, I use celcius. But this years AO was not that bad temp wise - we only had one massively hot day during quallies, and Feb is no better than January anyway.

I know you didn't mention a specific tourney to get rid of in Australia - you just basically said all except Sydney. I was just pointing out that players do like other tourneys. BTW, Gold Coast is never that bad a tourney either (but it's being moved to Brisbane now). :shrug:

Umm for someone who seems to make out they know what the best schedule would be, you don't seem to know much - as of next year IW IS mandatory for the women - so YES problematic to have IW & Miami before the AO! :weirdo: Would be a better idea if they put Doha/Dubai before the AO as warm ups and still had a couple of other tourneys in Australia beforehand (over 3 weeks, inc Doha/Dubai) and push AO back a couple of weeks - but not to go to the US, then to Australia, then to UAE, then back to US for a couple of crappy green clay tourneys that aren't relevant to anything. Then they could move the clay season a couple of weeks earlier and create a couple of weeks extra between FO and Wimby.

About the only thing I agree with is getting rid of clay tourneys after Wimby - I have been saying that for a while.

I'm sorry you were confused by my post, and I apologize for not explaining everything well. Instead of going straight to criticizing, why not ask for clarity? Plenty of other posters got it.

Why does it matter if there was only massively hot day at the AO this year? There have been plenty of searing hot days in the past. I'm sure March isn't as hot as hot as January.

You could have Sydney and Gold Coast in 1 week.

If IW and Miami are both going to be mandatory anyway, why not put them in the weeks before the hardcourt major as preparation? Why have random mandatory events that lead up to nothing? I understand that Miami and IW have a small bit of cohesion toward the US green clay tournaments, and that moving Doha and Dubai might be even better, given their geography. That could work too. Although I should point out-- Dubai and Melbourne-- are not closeby. If anything, these events should be indoors and played after the US Open during the Euro/Asian indoors :haha:

There's so much globetrotting that goes on anyway, and playerd fly accross the globe for the right price. I think surface is more important than geography in todays game.

And yes, why why why are clay touraments being played for weeks after wimbledon?

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 07:37 AM
I'm sorry you were confused by my post, and I apologize for not explaining everything well. Instead of going straight to criticizing, why not ask for clarity? Plenty of other posters got it.

Why does it matter if there was only massively hot day at the AO this year? There have been plenty of searing hot days in the past. I'm sure March isn't as hot as hot as January.

You could have Sydney and Gold Coast in 1 week.

If IW and Miami are both going to be mandatory anyway, why not put them in the weeks before the hardcourt major as preparation? Why have random mandatory events that lead up to nothing? I understand that Miami and IW have a small bit of cohesion toward the US green clay tournaments, and that moving Doha and Dubai might be even better, given their geography. That could work too. Although I should point out-- Dubai and Melbourne-- are not closeby. If anything, these events should be indoors and played after the US Open during the Euro/Asian indoors :haha:

There's so much globetrotting that goes on anyway, and playerd fly accross the globe for the right price. I think surface is more important than geography in todays game.

And yes, why why why are clay touraments being played for weeks after wimbledon?

There is no way the AO would be in March - it clashes with too much stuff, and it's not even remotely close to school holidays in Australia. I think pushing it back a couple of weeks would work (at least it's not so close to Christmas then). But actually, March has been pretty warm here this year - that was my point about the weather - the weather here is certainly changing it's patterns.

Yes, they could have Sydney and Gold Coast in one week, and they could also have eg Doha & Auckland, and then another week for Dubai & perhaps another tourney like Hobart for the lower ranked players. I know Doha & Dubai aren't so close to Australia, but it seems more logical to me to move those tourneys before AO than to move 2 mandatories - and why do I say don't have them before AO? Well because I don't think AO will be moved to March, then I think it's too heavy for the players to have 2 mandatories and then go right into a GS. It's 6 weeks in a row of mandatory tennis - too much (I don't like mandatories anyway, but I won't go into that at the moment). ;)

Clay after Wimby? :shrug: Guess the lower ranked clay courters don't have enough time (or a good enough ranking) to get many points during the real clay season, so they need some more opporunities after Wimby. :devil:

faboozadoo15
Apr 12th, 2008, 07:42 AM
Clay after Wimby? :shrug: Guess the lower ranked clay courters don't have enough time (or a good enough ranking) to get many points during the real clay season, so they need some more opporunities after Wimby. :devil:

I think it also helps a lot of players who miss cutoffs in the hard-to-get-into-small-draw-cali-tourneys.

But it annoys me.

Jakeev
Apr 12th, 2008, 07:51 AM
Whoa back up a minute, did I read a earlier post right? The men will be heading to Eastbourne?

smokovec
Apr 12th, 2008, 08:05 AM
I'm happy with 1 more week of grass season.

Move RG one week before and then make Eastbourne a Tier I in the middle of grass Month.

Roland Garros --> 2 weeks
Birmingham --> Tier III (or maybe Tier II)
Eastbourne --> Tier I
Ordina Open + another grass tournament in Germany or other European Country --> Tier III/Tier III or IV
Wimbledon --> 2 weeks

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 08:28 AM
I think it also helps a lot of players who miss cutoffs in the hard-to-get-into-small-draw-cali-tourneys.

But it annoys me.

So make the Euro tourneys on hard too - at least it makes more sense than clay right? ;)

CuteKoala
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:51 AM
There ought to be an important tournament in Africa, too. :cool:

StephenUK
Apr 12th, 2008, 11:34 AM
I think they should axe rubbish Indian Wells and move Miami and the US clay events two weeks earlier. That would free up extra time to move Roland Garros earlier and expand the grass season. We could have two extra weeks of grass or one of grass and one of clay.

The fact is that we do not need any more hard court events - clay and grass need to be protected and extended. All the calendar changes proposed to add extra events in Asia in the coming years seem to be at the expense of Europe, which provides 80% of top players - I think the US should give up some time too.

I agree that there should be a Tier I African championships too. It is to tennis's shame that the South African Open existed as a tour event during the days of apartheid but isn't around now. That would have been a grass event. The problem is fitting it into the calendar.

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:04 PM
SO, there'd be

Middle East (switch between Doha and Dubai, with the other used as a warm-up tournament)
Indian Wells
Miami
Charleston (giving the men a green clay tournament)
Germany (switch between Hamburg and Berlin)
Rome
Eastbourne
Canada (switch between Montreal and Toronto)
Moscow


I really like your proposals. :) And with "switching" you mean that one year the men (only men) play in that city, and the next year only the women in that city? Yes, that would be a good idea, also for the spectators and for the women, who wouldn't be treated as "2nd class players" then.

I'm still not sure if I really like having a Tier I grass tourney, though :p And I would also reduce the number of Tier I tourneys from 9to 8 or 7. Therefore maybe Moscow on carpet could be used as year-end-championships tournament or so..

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:06 PM
There's no grass court Tier I because Wimbledon and ROland Garros have there head up their asses. And once your head has been up therefor a hundred years, the shit solidifies.

Make Roland Garros a week earlier, makeWimbledon a week later, make Eastbourne the grass court TierI.

like Volcana said
the ATP & WTA cant do anything about it cos Roland Garros and Wimbledon WONT move at all.

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:10 PM
I think they should axe rubbish Indian Wells and move Miami and the US clay events two weeks earlier. That would free up extra time to move Roland Garros earlier and expand the grass season. We could have two extra weeks of grass or one of grass and one of clay.

The fact is that we do not need any more hard court events - clay and grass need to be protected and extended. All the calendar changes proposed to add extra events in Asia in the coming years seem to be at the expense of Europe, which provides 80% of top players - I think the US should give up some time too.

I agree that there should be a Tier I African championships too. It is to tennis's shame that the South African Open existed as a tour event during the days of apartheid but isn't around now. That would have been a grass event. The problem is fitting it into the calendar.


I think you provide some good points but I wouldn't call IW "rubbish". It's one of the most attended tourney's of the world outside of the Slams (admittedly, proably mostly because of ATP, though). I think that its field should be reduced, though, from a 96-field to a 64-field and be played in one week. If there's an US tournament that should be axed/reduced that would be Stanford :p which every year comes up with a pathetic Tier III field :tape:

Sam L
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:27 PM
I am not so sure. I think the beauty of the French Open and Wimbledon is the short turn around time the players have. The players really don't have much time to transition between clay and grass.Also, the weather in England is so unpredictable a longer grass court season could be disaster. i mean look at Wimbledon every single year it rains a lot. I think the system is just fine. I do think the clay court season could be a bit longer.

A longer grasscourt season does not mean it needs to be in Britain. In fact, I agree with the others, I want the grasscourt season extended post-Wimbledon. That means for some of the US hardcourt tournaments to go on grass.

There used to be, if anyone remembers, tournaments in Newport, Rhode Island and Forest Hills, NY after Wimbledon. I think some of the tournaments like New Haven should move earlier in the calender and be played on grass.

But I propose even bigger changes. I think tournaments like Indian Wells and Miami should be on American green clay. Therefore, you have an extended clay season but you have an American green clay season followed by a European red clay season.

That will dramatically cut out a lot of the hardcourt tournaments and hopefully that will prevent players from getting injured from playing too much on hardcourts.

But who am I kidding, this will never happen. :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:32 PM
like Volcana said
the ATP & WTA cant do anything about it cos Roland Garros and Wimbledon WONT move at all.

I think some people don't realise that ITF own the Grand SLams, not WTA. ;)

Sam L
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:34 PM
There's no grass court Tier I because Wimbledon and ROland Garros have there head up their asses. And once your head has been up therefor a hundred years, the shit solidifies.

Make Roland Garros a week earlier, makeWimbledon a week later, make Eastbourne the grass court TierI.

You can extend the seasons without moving the grand slams. See my post above.

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:44 PM
You can extend the seasons without moving the grand slams. See my post above.

Yeah, but having more grass tourneys after WImby seems like a waste of time - I don't think many players would play them. Half of them say they don't like to play on grass anyway, and when it's after the Grand Slam, they would all say "what's the point?" ALthough thinking about that - I guess they *could* try to put a WTA grass tourney in the 2nd week of RG - not that many top players would sign up, and I dunno if they would be allowed to do it anyway, but it would have the effect of "lengthening" the grass season slightly. ;)

Sam L
Apr 12th, 2008, 12:48 PM
Yeah, but having more grass tourneys after WImby seems like a waste of time - I don't think many players would play them. Half of them say they don't like to play on grass anyway, and when it's after the Grand Slam, they would all say "what's the point?" ALthough thinking about that - I guess they *could* try to put a WTA grass tourney in the 2nd week of RG - not that many top players would sign up, and I dunno if they would be allowed to do it anyway, but it would have the effect of "lengthening" the grass season slightly. ;)

$ and ranking points always seem to work, somewhat. ;) I mean it's not like any of the players need to "prepare" for hardcourt tennis. :confused:

austennis
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:13 PM
raise estbourne to tier 1 but dont change the timetable

sammy01
Apr 12th, 2008, 02:41 PM
my ideal schedule would have;
4 weeks of tournies, then oz open in feb (6 weeks)
spring hardcourt season of indian wells and miami rest week inbetween (5 weeks)
4 weeks of clay tournies, then the french open (6 weeks)
4 weeks of grass tournies, then wimbledon (6 weeks)
4 weeks of summer hard court tournies, then us open (6 weeks)
5 weeks of indoor autumn tournies, then YEC exstended to a 2 week event (7 weeks)
4 weeks of fed cup on the same week as the smallest tournies before the slams (4 weeks)

this would then let all the specialist have 6 weeks on their surface and give us a calender of 40 weeks, at least 1 tier 1 on each suface 2 weeks before the slam with 2 in the autumn, 2 weeks with a tier 2 events on each of them before slams and 2 more tier 2's in the autumn, 1 week with 2 tier 3's in the week before slams or after and 2 more the week before YEC (the fed cup weeks would be on these weeks). this would give us 8 tier 1's, 10 tier 2's, 10 tier 3's, 4 weeks of fed cup and the slams and YEC.

Slutiana
Apr 12th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Grass is the least interesting surface, there are already too many grass tournaments.

For WTA, it's not, Wimbledon has been the best Slam for the past 3/4 years.

ATP, it's awful though :o

Agreed. :help: I think thet's why they're slowing it down - to try and help the clay court ATP hackers. Right now is good for all the flat ball strikers of the women's game, too.

raise estbourne to tier 1 but dont change the timetable
Unless it's mandatory, not many would play it. And if it did, i'm sure RG, Wimbledon and te WTA Tour will be seeing a letter in the post, and published in the national papers, from Venus.

kwilliams
Apr 12th, 2008, 04:51 PM
A longer grass court season would be great. The tour used to be all grass and I wish we could have a few more tournaments in places outside of Northern Europe or even in more countries in Northern Europe since conditions there are conducive to grass.

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:07 PM
$ and ranking points always seem to work, somewhat. ;) I mean it's not like any of the players need to "prepare" for hardcourt tennis. :confused:

No, they don't need to, but as I also said above, alot of players don't like to play on grass, and given Wimby is the epitome of grass tourneys, having grass tourneys afterwards doesn't seem likely to work very well to me.

Craigy
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:10 PM
"some grass Tier 1's"? So you want to have several of them??

And what does "even clay courts have 3" mean, please? :rolleyes:

The way you're talking you would think you are a clay court tournament. :lol:

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:32 PM
The way you're talking you would think you are a clay court tournament. :lol:


I'm not :ras: But I'm definately against expanding the grass season by reducing the clay season ;)

DutchieGirl
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:39 PM
I'm not :ras: But I'm definately against expanding the grass season by reducing the clay season ;)

I think most people wanna make the clay season a couple of weeks earlier, but not reduce it.

Slutiana
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:40 PM
I'm not :ras: But I'm definately against expanding the grass season by reducing the clay season ;)
It's ok, you're German, Germany is filled with clay courts. Oh and while i'm on that subject, I'd just like to put to rest the misconception that every court in england is a grasscourt. :o If you think that saying 'Go back to your stupid little grasscourts' is an insult then think again. I've only ever played on grass twice in my life. :o

Matt01
Apr 12th, 2008, 10:49 PM
It's ok, you're German, Germany is filled with clay courts. Oh and while i'm on that subject, I'd just like to put to rest the misconception that every court in england is a grasscourt. :o If you think that saying 'Go back to your stupid little grasscourts' is an insult then think again. I've only ever played on grass twice in my life. :o


So where do you play tennis in the summer in England? More on clay or on hard court? :)

darrinbaker00
Apr 12th, 2008, 11:57 PM
I think you provide some good points but I wouldn't call IW "rubbish". It's one of the most attended tourney's of the world outside of the Slams (admittedly, proably mostly because of ATP, though). I think that its field should be reduced, though, from a 96-field to a 64-field and be played in one week. If there's an US tournament that should be axed/reduced that would be Stanford :p which every year comes up with a pathetic Tier III field :tape:
As far as this Bay Area resident is concerned, THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS! :boxing:

Besides, the very first Virginia Slims (which eventually evolved into the WTA) event was held in Oakland, CA. If for nothing more than history's sake, the WTA should stay in the Bay Area.

Slutiana
Apr 13th, 2008, 12:06 AM
So where do you play tennis in the summer in England? More on clay or on hard court? :)
Hard, hard and more hard. The few tennis clubs which have grass courts use them in the summer but there are more clay courts than grass courts. And shale, ugh, shale.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Hard, hard and more hard. The few tennis clubs which have grass courts use them in the summer but there are more clay courts than grass courts. And shale, ugh, shale.

your so right, my local club had grass courts up untill last year which was nice but i was influential in getting rid of them. i help run the club and the grass was just expensive to look after and very hard work to maintane and we could only use the courts between may and late september (we have hardcourts as well for winter). we now have carpet courts instead of grass, as much as it was great playing on grass its a dying surface because of the reasons i put down that we got rid of them. i guess its been the same for tournaments.