Tennis grass season

[Frode789]

The current ATP schedule

I've always enjoyed grass tennis, watching Wimbledon was the highlight of the year even before I became a "tennis addict". I enjoy watching tennis on all surfaces however, I think the diversity that the 3 surfaces bring is very important for the sport. This is also why I've been hoping for more grass tennis each year when ATP announces their 2 year schedules, hoping for some good news.. (which in most years were a disappointment) I am fine with HC being the dominant surface. Imagine a calendar with 40 events on clay and 20 on HC. That would be ridiculous. Of course ideally you'd have the season in 3 parts, equally big. But realistically, that will never happen. ATP can't or won't make big changes like that. As of now, HC is the dominant surface, clay and grass are specialty surfaces, and that will probably never change. Currently, this is how the ATP schedule is divided:

As you can see the biggest difference is the ATP 1000 Masters events. 0 for grass. The difference in ATP 250 events isn't really important, the grass season will always be the shortest season in amount of weeks, so this is fine. Also, what annoys me a bit about the tour schedule is July. That month is a mess. It is the only month where we have play on ALL 3 surfaces. As you can see on the figures, HC is played in January -> March, and July -> November. Clay is in play in February, April, May (+ 1 week of June for RG) & July. Grass is limited to just June & July. With the changes I'm suggesting there will be 1 more week of grass play in July, and 1

What about ATP 1000 Masters on grass?
As mentioned above this is of course the most glaring problem for any tennis fan that appreciates grass tennis. What I would suggest is based on realistic expectations. There is no way the grass will ever be played for ~3 months like clay. The schedule is very packed (with a few exceptions, such as in September), and making big changes is something that ATP really would not want to do. So what then?

A) Upgrade Halle to ATP 1000 Masters. It has the facilities, and Germany really got shafted after the whole Hamburg demote incident. Of course, if we left the schedule alone with only that change, Queens would be destroyed. Queens doesn't have the facilities for a Masters events, but it holds a lot of history and does attract most seeds each year as the warm-up for Wimbledon. The solution is the move Halle to after Wimbledon. Now Queens will be the only event in week #2 of the grass season, and will be even more happy with getting all the attention as the main warm-up event for Wimbledon.
Then, Halle will be held two weeks after Wimbledon. (This year that would be 2017.07.24 - 2017.07.30) Newport will serve as a "warm-up" immediately after Wimbledon for those who maybe busted out early or want another fine-tune before Halle. Right now, nobody cares about Newport, which is a shame. At least with this change, there will more players that would want to attend. Win-win.

B) Hamburg is upgraded to ATP 1000 Masters & changes its surface to grass. The event is helt in the same time slot, two weeks after Wimbledon.

Other changes that would have to be done, to make sure no ATP 500s are at the same time: Hamburg would be moved 1 week later, while the ATP 500 event Citi Open would be moved to September, the most boring month in the ATP schedule with just 4 ATP 250s. So the schedule would change very little, but very important changes!

Is grass tennis doomed?
Not at all. In fact, the last two years, grass tennis season has seen the biggest improvements in 10+ years. Thankfully ATP does want to make changes, it just takes a very long time for things to happen sadly.

2015:
+ 1 extra week in between RG and Wimbledon, up to a total of 3 weeks.
+ 1 more ATP 250 event on grass - Stuttgart changed surface from clay to grass.
+ Queens & Halle both upgraded to became the first ATP 500s on grass.
In 2015 grass tennis saw an 750 ATP points increase to 4000 points.

2017:
+ Brand new ATP 250 grass event in Antalya.
In total 6 grass events in the 3 weeks before Wimbledon. (+ Newport after Wimbledon)
Grass tennis is now at 8 events & 4250 points. 1000 more points than it accounted for in 2014!

Just to recap, just a few years ago it was only 2 weeks before Wimbledon, with 4 ATP 250s thrown in. That is pretty sad really.

Discussion
- Thoughts about the balance of the schedule?
- Agree that HC should be the dominant surface, while clay and grass are specialty surfaces?
- I think that Hamburg or Halle are the best grass ATP Masters candidates! Other alternatives?
Anything else?

So the season for 2017 is coming up. We are about to enjoy RG as the final stop first. In the meantime, we can start to look forward to our biggest ever grass tour:

Week 1 (2017.06.12 - 2017.06.18):

Mercedes Cup @ Stuttgart, Germany.

Ricoh Open @ s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.

Week 2 (2017.06.19 - 2017.06.25):

Aegon Championships @ London, Great Britain.

Gerry Weber Open @ Halle, Germany.

Week 3 (2017.06.25 - 2017.07.01):

Antalya Open @ Antalya, Turkey.

Aegon International @ Eastbourne, Great Britain.

Week 4 and 5 (2017.07.03 - 2017.07.16)

Wimbledon @ London, Great Britain.

Week 6 (2017.07.17 - 2017.07.23):

Dell Technologies Hall of Fame Open @ Newport RI, USA.

PS: Please keep this thread clear of arguing about what surface is best (Fedal fan war about clay vs grass..) and player talk. This is a thread about the surfaces and the ATP calendar.
​

 

[britbox]

Nice post @Frode789 - I'm with you on that the grass court season is too short, and would love to see a grass Masters. Adding Stuttgart was a step in the right direction... and I Newport should really be a much more prestigious event with the Hall of Fame connection. June's pretty much exclusively grass but I'd like July to be pretty much reserved for grass tennis also.

 

[El Dude]

Good post. While I like the idea of adding a grass Masters, it would require a downgrade of one of the other hardcourt Masters because they want to retain the historical precedent of nine Masters, which goes back to 1970 with the Grand Prix Super Series. It wouldn't be IW or Miami, so would have to be one of the later year Masters - Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, or Paris. I suppose my vote would be Canada or Paris. Canada would especially make sense as you'd be slotting in a new Masters between Wimbledon and the US Open. Having three Masters there would be a bit grueling, and I think you'd find many players opting out of one.

On the other hand, Paris is probably the weakest Masters in terms of of competition level; I see it as a kind of "ATP 750," sort of like Monte Carlo.

I personally think changing Hamburg back to a Masters is the best idea. It is in the right place already, and wouldn't diminish the nice London/Halle tandem of Wimbledon warm-ups. Then reduce Canada to an ATP 500 (sorry, herios). I mean, look at it this way: the Canadians will whine but won't put up the stink that the French would.

 

[Moxie]

Good post. While I like the idea of adding a grass Masters, it would require a downgrade of one of the other hardcourt Masters because they want to retain the historical precedent of nine Masters, which goes back to 1970 with the Grand Prix Super Series. It wouldn't be IW or Miami, so would have to be one of the later year Masters - Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, or Paris. I suppose my vote would be Canada or Paris. Canada would especially make sense as you'd be slotting in a new Masters between Wimbledon and the US Open. Having three Masters there would be a bit grueling, and I think you'd find many players opting out of one.

On the other hand, Paris is probably the weakest Masters in terms of of competition level; I see it as a kind of "ATP 750," sort of like Monte Carlo.

I personally think changing Hamburg back to a Masters is the best idea. It is in the right place already, and wouldn't diminish the nice London/Halle tandem of Wimbledon warm-ups. Then reduce Canada to an ATP 500 (sorry, herios). I mean, look at it this way: the Canadians will whine but won't put up the stink that the French would.

But why not Cincy instead of Canada? The US has 3 as it is, and the alternating Toronto/Montreal with the women's tour is nice.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Dude, get your hands off the Rogers Cup ! It is good the way it is

 

[Frode789]

Good post. While I like the idea of adding a grass Masters, it would require a downgrade of one of the other hardcourt Masters because they want to retain the historical precedent of nine Masters, which goes back to 1970 with the Grand Prix Super Series. It wouldn't be IW or Miami, so would have to be one of the later year Masters - Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, or Paris. I suppose my vote would be Canada or Paris. Canada would especially make sense as you'd be slotting in a new Masters between Wimbledon and the US Open. Having three Masters there would be a bit grueling, and I think you'd find many players opting out of one.

On the other hand, Paris is probably the weakest Masters in terms of of competition level; I see it as a kind of "ATP 750," sort of like Monte Carlo.

I personally think changing Hamburg back to a Masters is the best idea. It is in the right place already, and wouldn't diminish the nice London/Halle tandem of Wimbledon warm-ups. Then reduce Canada to an ATP 500 (sorry, herios). I mean, look at it this way: the Canadians will whine but won't put up the stink that the French would.

Definately. There needs to go 1 HC Masters event, and my vote goes to Shanghai or Paris. Both feel pretty lackluster at the moment. On the other hand USA has so many Masters events, so if they should get a down-vote then I hope it is Miami. That event really is poor compared to IW and Cincy.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Firstly, I think the idea to have a grass Masters after Wimbledon is pretty terrible. The reason people play Queens/Halle is as warm-up for Wimbledon. A grass masters after Wimbledon is likely to be skipped by those who can. Why not move Wimbledon back one week, and have a new Masters in the week after Queens/Halle?

Of course, Queens does have the greatest prestige of the non-Wimbledon grass court tournaments. I suppose that it would be difficult to extend the site to host a Masters event, but if possible it would be the best option.

As for replacing another MS:

CLAY
There are three clay MS events within a fairly short period of time. If one of them was to be downgraded, it should probably be Madrid, while MC could become compulsory again. Maybe their position in the schedule could be moved around to have MC take place closer to RG. On the flip side, we would be losing another non-HC masters. Notice, though,

HARD COURT
If we are going to replace a hard-court MS, as far as I can tell the only sensible choice is Rogers Cup or Cincinnati, where I would say that as the only Canadian MS, Rogers Cup should stay. IW and Miami are definitely not going to be downgraded (despite Miami's recent troubles with not being able to expand the site). Shanghai was introduced specifically to increase the Asian market, and as a compensation for the WTF going to Europe. It's not going to be downgraded in favour of another MS in Europe (which the grass-court MS would necessarily be). Paris has been increasing its importance as a WTF warm-up event since the schedule was changed to include a week between the two tournaments.

Notice, however, that losing Rogers Cup or Cincy would mean that AO has 0 warm-up MS, Wimbledon 1, USO 1, and RG 3. This could be an argument for replacing a clay MS after all. But the grass season was only recently expanded, and I doubt much more will change in the next few years.

 

[Frode789]

Firstly, I think the idea to have a grass Masters after Wimbledon is pretty terrible. The reason people play Queens/Halle is as warm-up for Wimbledon. A grass masters after Wimbledon is likely to be skipped by those who can. Why not move Wimbledon back one week, and have a new Masters in the week after Queens/Halle?

Of course, Queens does have the greatest prestige of the non-Wimbledon grass court tournaments. I suppose that it would be difficult to extend the site to host a Masters event, but if possible it would be the best option.

Not at all. It is the most realistic option. Of course, everyone wants perfect solutions, and the perfect solution would be:

Week 1:
Stuttgart and Ricoh ATP 250s

Week 2:
Queens (and Halle if it is not the Masters event) ATP 500s

Week 3:
Eastbourne ATP 250

Week 4:
Halle/Hamburg ATP 1000 Masters.

Week 5:
Antalya ATP 250

Week 6 & 7:
Wimbledon

Week 8:
Newport + other small events on clay and HC.

However, this would move Wimbledon back 2 weeks! And I highly doubt they would do that. They just moved 1 week back in 2015.
You could run the Masters right after ATP 500s, thus reducing it to just 1 week, but then many would skip ATP 500s and just use the Masters as warm-up for Wimbledon. And moving the ATP 500s to the other side of Wimbledon makes even less sense. So I think the best option is actually to host the Masters event 2 weeks after Wimbledon.

Miami and IW are after the HC slam, yet it isn't skipped. The new grass Masters would of course be mandatory, on the expense of a HC Masters Paris/Miami etc.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Miami and IW are after the HC slam, yet it isn't skipped. The new grass Masters would of course be mandatory, on the expense of a HC Masters Paris/Miami etc.

Miami and IW are funny; they have their own prestige, and they are not in the middle of a period where there is already a lot of tennis to be played. Players don't want to stay on grass after Wimbledon, but rather want to move on to the US Open season. Players skip "mandatory" events regularly for various reasons, but the bigger issue is that this would never get player support in the ATP.

 

[El Dude]

OK, fine - Canada can keep their Masters and we'll give up Cincinnati. I can live with that.

I kind of like Jedi's idea of downgrading Madrid and making MC mandatory, and then maybe turning Paris into optional. On the other hand, that would make the second half of the year a bit heavy. Right now we have a nice halfway mark between RG and Wimbledon, with two Slams on either side and five Masters before and four Masters and the WTF after.

 

[britbox]

Definately. There needs to go 1 HC Masters event, and my vote goes to Shanghai or Paris. Both feel pretty lackluster at the moment. On the other hand USA has so many Masters events, so if they should get a down-vote then I hope it is Miami. That event really is poor compared to IW and Cincy.

I think they'd keep Shanghai, not because it's a vibrant event, but as a slow burner to promote tennis in the eastern hemisphere... plus I guess there is money there. My preference would be to get rid of Paris if I had to drop a masters. They host the French Open there anyway.

 

[Moxie]

I think they'd keep Shanghai, not because it's a vibrant event, but as a slow burner to promote tennis in the eastern hemisphere... plus I guess there is money there. My preference would be to get rid of Paris if I had to drop a masters. They host the French Open there anyway.

Paris-Bercy has been limping along and also hoping to change it's place in the schedule, for the very reason that everyone is tired by the time they get there. I agree you have to keep Shanghai, for big-picture reasons. But if you drop Paris, that means that the MS 1000s end earlier in the year, which would negate the mandate that the YEC needs to be on indoor hards. It could be taken out of the O2, and be changed at a more revolving basis. One of the other main events that players would be likely to play at the end of the year is DC, and that is surface-of-choice.

 

[britbox]

^ London hosting the Year End has just been extended to 2020. I think they announced it yesterday.

 

[Moxie]

^ London hosting the Year End has just been extended to 2020. I think they announced it yesterday.

We don't expect the calendar to change quickly, but that just solidifies the end of year lock on indoor hards, no matter what else changes. I think there's an argument for making the YEC a moveable feast, especially if you eliminate Paris-Bercy as a MS 1000. In terms of the overall enthusiasm for tennis, you could take it to different venues, surfaces and hemispheres. Is there a really good argument for keeping it in London?

 

[britbox]

We don't expect the calendar to change quickly, but that just solidifies the end of year lock on indoor hards, no matter what else changes. I think there's an argument for making the YEC a moveable feast, especially if you eliminate Paris-Bercy as a MS 1000. In terms of the overall enthusiasm for tennis, you could take it to different venues, surfaces and hemispheres. Is there a really good argument for keeping it in London?

Good facilities, Full attendance, Decent Sponsorship. Players like it. It's well supported.

 

[Moxie]

Good facilities, Full attendance, Decent Sponsorship. Players like it. It's well supported.

Is that enough of an argument? Places like Shanghai and Tokyo got placed in the calendar based on forward-notions. We've all seen empty seats in the Middle East. If we went by your list, every tournament would be in Europe, the US or Oz, basically.

 

[britbox]

Is that enough of an argument? Places like Shanghai and Tokyo got placed in the calendar based on forward-notions. We've all seen empty seats in the Middle East. If we went by your list, every tournament would be in Europe, the US or Oz, basically.

The End of Year comp should be in the biggest markets - it works well for all. If you want to spread the love then use some more ATP 500s to do it. I do actually think there could be a masters in S.America.

 

[Moxie]

The End of Year comp should be in the biggest markets - it works well for all. If you want to spread the love then use some more ATP 500s to do it. I do actually think there could be a masters in S.America.

The ATP 500s are pretty well dispersed, I think. I've tried to think of a MS in S. America, and it is pretty hard to fit in. If they dropped Paris, maybe Rio or BA after Shanghai? But I don't understand why you think that the YEC has to be in the biggest markets, or London, alone? In any decent market, the people will come, and the media will broadcast it. It really doesn't have to be in London or New York to be a big deal.

 

[DarthFed]

We don't expect the calendar to change quickly, but that just solidifies the end of year lock on indoor hards, no matter what else changes. I think there's an argument for making the YEC a moveable feast, especially if you eliminate Paris-Bercy as a MS 1000. In terms of the overall enthusiasm for tennis, you could take it to different venues, surfaces and hemispheres. Is there a really good argument for keeping it in London?

The event should be played indoors because that is what the lead-up events are played on and the other surfaces all have significant events, more significant than YEC of course. That's the argument for having it indoors and it's less important than the argument against moving it to different locations and different surfaces. The quality of play would figure to suffer in a huge way if we go from indoor hard to clay or grass. And if you give the players an extra week after Paris to become more acclimated with a big change in surface that means one less week they have in what is already a very short offseason. Also if it moves to a different location every year I think the event as a whole would lose a lot of its prestige.

 

[Moxie]

The event should be played indoors because that is what the lead-up events are played on and the other surfaces all have significant events, more significant than YEC of course. That's the argument for having it indoors and it's less important than the argument against moving it to different locations and different surfaces. The quality of play would figure to suffer in a huge way if we go from indoor hard to clay or grass. And if you give the players an extra week after Paris to become more acclimated with a big change in surface that means one less week they have in what is already a very short offseason. Also if it moves to a different location every year I think the event as a whole would lose a lot of its prestige.

Did you miss the lead-in to this which was a suggestion to get rid of the Paris MS? If you did that, and given that DC is also right next to the YEC and is on various surfaces, why couldn't the surface change for the YEC? There'd be a break after Shanghai, and time to travel and adjust to surface.