Time for player power?

Sorry to burst the bubble - the usage of "top-4 domination" is not right. Call it top-3+1. Andy is not to be said in the same league as the other three. But he is definitely better (a notch higher) than the rest of the top-4.
Yes, we need quality tennis from the best players and if that means fewer tournaments for them, so be it. Perhaps they can make a rule saying top-10 have different requirement (say 1 even less) than top-10 to top-50 who in turn have one event less than the rest. This way the rankings are rewarded and if they think their rank positions are threatened by lower rank players who may be playing more, they are always welcome to play more than what they are required to.

Please, please, please do us all a favour and call a PERMANENT strike.

What are the punishments for not attending a mandatory event? As an injured player surely suffers no fate, can fatigue be cited as a reason to miss one?

Or is it the issue with the ranking points on offer?

You can see the issue the tournaments have. They need to best players there to promote the tournament and make it money, and therefore the prize pot is increased and players earn more. As soon as tournaments below Masters level and certainly below 250 become entirely optional, they can't expect many top participants.

All the mens players should play in the 4 slams, the 8 Masters 1000 tournaments and 2 more after that, whereever they choose. It should be up to them when and where they want to play.

The biggest problem though is the scheduling. There are two hard court seasons, bizarrely, one after a grand slam has taken place - the Australian open, and one before the US Open; a clay court season which leads up to the French and a grass court season which lasts about three weeks, including Wimbledon.

The best thing they could do would be to rearrange the Australian Open to March, after a hardcourt season which incorporates event such as Indian Wells and Miami, then, a clay court season: Monte Carlo, Madrid, Rome then Roland Garros - a break - then the short summer grasscourt season - a break - then the hardcourt season (Canada/Cincinnati) with US Open being at the end. Then an indoor season in the Autumn/winter months (Paris/Shanghai) with the Tour Finals a bit earlier in late October/Early November.

1.
At 18:06 19th Sep 2011, Vettel_the_wunder_crash_kid wrote:

Sorry to burst the bubble - the usage of "top-4 domination" is not right. Call it top-3+1. Andy is not to be said in the same league as the other three. But he is definitely better (a notch higher) than the rest of the top-4.

__________________

What in Lord's name does that mean and how in any way is it relevant here?

All sports governing bodies need to be careful with burning out star players. Every major televised sport seems to have issues with calendar congestion as they attempt to chase the money. The quality at the very top end must be preserved and something will eventually have to be done in each sport to reduce the overall amount of it being played.

Maybe we will see this first in Men's tennis as the top 4 are so dominant and have an excellent position to negotiate from.

Number 1, you miss the point. The basic fact is that Murray played in 1 GS final and 4 GS semi's, that requires a minimum 21 best of 5 matches, he made a number of semi's in the Masters1000/500/250's, all best of 3, requiring about 40 odd matches.

Likewise the other members of the top 3. Even getting to a semi these days requires beating a number of excellent, physical players and it is testament to the skill and ability of the top 4 they have been so consistent against such a strong top 20.

The point is, with few easy matches and lots of tough battles for all players, and especially a top 4 who have dominated they are putting their livelyhoods on the line.

The tournaments need to wake up, because the sponsors want the best players playing their best tennis, likewise the public, a burned out Djokovic beating a limping Nadal after Federer and Murray withdraw injured is no tournament at all.

The biggest problems with the tennis calendar are that:
- there are two hard court majors played at the beginning of their respective seasons. For instance, the Australian Open is played right at the beginning of the year, which is one of the main reasons why there have been so many random finalists over the years (no disrespect to Schuettler, Clement, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Johansson etc) as too many players turn up undercooked.
- Also, the off-season is so short - only a month, for which the top players attempt to cram as much hot-weather/altitude/fitness training to ensure they arrive at the new season in peak condition. Not many get much time to 'chill out'.

Starting the Aus Open in March is a very good idea. Play the two big American events (indian wells/Miami) as warm-up events and have a host of events leading up, which incorporates big tournaments like Rotterdam/Memphis, and can also extend to other areas of the world e.g. possibly Far East/Africa. Hold the Latin American clay swing straight afterwards before the European swing begins and lead up to RG with those 1000 events which are spread evenly over 3 weeks. The schedule should go: 250 event/500 event/ 1000 event, then a week's break before RG. There should be a similar, yet shorter structure to the grass court season, with a 250, 500 event (possibly Queens) and a 1000 event in perhaps Germany, which lacks a tournament at this standard since Hamburg was reduced. It would mean extending this particular stage of the season, however, but would perhaps encourage more clay courters to turn up for Wimbledon. Once Wimbledon is over, have the American swing culminating in the two 1000 events and the US Open, followed by the indoor swing.

What are people's opinions on a fifth major, possibly on indoor fast courts in Spain? They are the best nation, have an updated tennis centre in Madrid and a keen public. Downsides would be an additional mandatory tournament, and question marks over whether the surface is different enough from events in Aus/US opens, and also prestige.

It would also be a fitting and satisfactory way to end the season before the ATP World Tour Finals, and this swing can incorporate the two indoor 1000 events (Poss Shanghai and Paris).

The main thing is to keep the mandatory events (GS, MS 1000s) further apart and not have them consecutively, as this reduces the quality and reduces the number of leading players turning up, and increases burn-out fears for the season. It's amazing Nadal does as well as he does in the clay court%

when all the events are crammed together

If Andy is tired take a month off - its not like he can't afford to take a holiday. It seems the actual complaint is more along the lines of we want to play less tennis but not make less money.

at 9: Obviously you're not a tennis fan since you would know that Andy would not be at number 4 in the world if he missed a number of big events.

Why not scrap the rule of mandatory tournaments so players can pick and choose their tournaments because if the top players stop attending certain tournaments, they will soon be quite willing to change their schedule

I also think it's worth pointing out that the schedule hasn't ratcheted up in the past couple of seasons; it's just that it's become popular to complain of the schedule.

In 1984 McEnroe had a season similar to that of Djokovic 2011, with a win-loss of 82-3. Nole is currently 64-3 (or thereabouts). If he were to play in four more events this year (which seems about right given the ATP calendar) and to get to the latter stages of each he would end up with a similar number of matches played as J Mac.

So the total number of matches has stayed pretty flat over the years. But this needs to be put in context. All else is not equal. We have had advances in terms of rehab treatments over the years; players are better informed on nutrition; arguably better accommodated by the various tournament hosts; and fewer five-set matches (a few years back the finals of master's events was dropped from 5 to 3 sets). All of these point to a player's ability to play more matches in a season. That's not to say they should, or that the players of the 80s and before them played the optimal number of matches. It's just something I feel we should bear in mind.

Correct me if I am wrong.
But these people decided to play the game for the fame and fortune that comes with it.
A lot of them are multi-millionaires at a very young age, and well done to them.
However if you make the choice to push yourself to the limit and then earn the rewards, surely you cannot dictate to the paying public and also sponsors, who I hasten to add actually pays their over inflated prize money/appearance fees, as to when or where you are going to play....
They all should get a grip on reality and actually appreciate that a lot of people go without for a long time in order to pay for an over priced ticket to see an overated person hit a ball..
Maybe they should take time out to go see how the other half live, and actually donate a percentage of their winnings/appearance fee every time they deign to turn up, to the more just causes in the world...

Its really a big 3 with Andy Murray a clear 4 in the world but not at the level of the other 3 yet mainly because he has not won a slam and that at the end of the day is what your career is judged on. Its not that he's not a class player he is and there much worse players since I have been watching the sport who have won slams.
I think the slams have to stay in the current postion, and reduce the Masters series if they can, perhaps Davis Cup as well.

No.9, did you even read the article before commenting?

And why, No.2 (how apt..), are you reading and commenting on an article solely about tennis if you clearly don't like it?

Strange. Anyway, I only came on here to tell everyone that I think tennis is really rubbish and that Andy Murray should take a break unless he's so greedy for money. Yawn.

It makes me chuckle that nearly everyone interested in the sport has been falling over themselves to revere the athleticism, skill and competitiveness of the upper ranks of tennis over the past 5-8 years, and yet some of those who regulate, organise and influence the sport are too caught up in branding and kowtowing to commercial and certain traditions that are lagging behind the changes that have occurred in the game, how it is physically played and, clearly, how it must be resultantly organised and administered. Player-power is a frightening prospect in some sports, but I don't get that worry so much with tennis players. Not sure why, but it seems that they have the interests of the sport at heart.

No.1. Hmm, so you are saying murray doesnt belong in the top-4 because he hasnt won a grand slam? Does his performances over the last 12 month show how much better he is than the rest of the top tennis players? Has he not won a 7 masters series in total and reached 3 grand slam finals.

Now regarding the season. I think they show rejig it. I think there are too many hard court tournements and the clay court season is far too long. I think we should have a Masters 1000 on grass - not sure where, why not revamp Queens? Its known as a prestigious event, why not expand (if poss) and create a new masters series to replace either Monte Carlo, Rome or Madrid?

If the players want to strike, then they should shut up and do it. The top players can easily afford to take a break, and the lower players would be grateful of a chance at the top prize money.

Or maybe they should look at the real world, where people slave their life away to earn a tiny fraction of what a top tennis player can earn, for a few hours per week.

So please Mr Murray, go on strike, and see if it makes you happier with your life.

I can't really take multi-millionaires threatening strike action too seriously.

It's insane how many tournaments the top players are expected to compete in. Frankly, I don't know how they do it. The way Nadal and Djoko played in the US final I'm surprised they can even pick up a tennis racquet yet! It's ridiculous to say (as some do) "oh well they are paid a shedload unlike us poor rat race minions on minimum wage so they should just get on with it". Such people are just envious of their talent and riches and have absolutely no idea how physically and mentally exhausting it must be to win a major. To be expected to play so many tournaments in between the majors is inhuman. It does not matter how much money is earned there is only so much the body can take. I hope they do strike and personally I think the calender should be reduced by about 50%. Very few give two hoots about the ATP tournos anyway. The only thing most people watch and follow are the 4 majors.

I've always been passionate about upgrading a grass court event to a Masters 1000 and getting rid of two, which may help the situation. We don't need to US hardcourt sessions (Miami/IW and then Cinnci/Toronto or Montreal in the summer) so why not get rid of the March Masters, give the players a break after the Australian Open, then blend the remaining events in a more systematic way? That way the clay season could start a little earlier, paving the way for a 1000 on the grass in preparation for Wimbledon which would surely help players to have more transition?

What non-tennis fans don't understand is that tennis is an 11 out of 12 month sport. Once the year end championships are over, most players only have at best a 6 week break before they play in Doha or other warm-up events for the Australian Open. This is unheard of in any other major sport and tiredness is a key factor in the top 8 players year in year out. Then there's the Davis Cup to put a spanner in the works.

F1 drivers, footballers and athletes get acceptable amounts of time off so why not tennis players??

@1 and 14
I think you're missing the point. Nobody would really argue (Murray included) that there is a gap between himself and the top 3. The top 4 on the whole play more tennis, reaching the semis and finals of most of the competitions they compete in.

Two US hardcourt sessions (typo - sorry)

@#12 what you are not considering here is how the nature of the game has changed. there are very few serve/volleyers any more, therefore points are much longer with all the baseline hitting; the game is much more physical so its harder on the body. the players need a longer break, its ridiculous.

does any other top sport in the world have a 1 month off season?

Seriously Nadaliator are you taking the mick? The poor little lambs only get 6 weeks off. I'd love to get 6 weeks off a year to enjoy my millions by the pampered little squinnies. Murray should become a professional whinger as he's a lot better at that than he is at tennis.

Chris1977 (No.14) & Vettel (No.1) kindly get your facts correctly. It is highly likely that Murray will become No.3 sometime before the end of this year and is actually 3rd, at present, for the 2011 results

Andy is fully entitled to air his views given his magnificent record at the Slams and Masters events - the 'jewels' in the Tennis calender

wicor

Your green-eyed envy shines through. Including Bank Holidays you already get nearly 6 weeks off work - unless you're employer is breaking the law

But there's nothing like a jealous rant against those spoilt sporting stars, even if the comparison used makes you look like a fool

24: "Murray should become a professional whinger as he's a lot better at that than he is at tennis.

He must be some 'whinger' - only 7th player in the open era to reach at least the semis of all 4 slams in the same year. Not bad.

No.17.
I agree. If Andy Murray and the rest want to go on strike, then so be it.
It would give us all break from the over inflated egos that are in sport.
The money made available to sportsmen and women is ludicrous. How anyone can think that someone who earns nearly a million pounds a month for playing football is just and right? Is beyond me.
How can anyone justify the amounts that tennis players get paid?
Sport is recreational, it certainly was when I played.
I played rugby and had to actually pay money every week for the right to play, but also the right to potentially have a limb broken or my face caved in..or even worse!!
Closely followed by a few days off work if seriously injured without pay.
My message is, and it relates to all walks of life, not just sports people, if you go into a career and earn the big bucks, do not whinge or whine when the going gets tough. Or you think it is tough, because believe me, not one of you have seen the real world.
It was your choice.

18:

Just back home from the Lib Dem Conference are we??? Seriously, think, read, or educate yourself much like number 9 needed to before commenting.

Do you know how many players have made over a million pounds this year in prize money? Well as of 12 September with all four Grand Slams played, just the top 5. Do you know who covers their expenses? Their earnings. No pressure on the lesser ranked then...

The point is for these top players to represent the many slogging it out below them.

Pathetic. They all get paid a fortune, get chauffeured round the world in supreme comfort and all for hitting a little yellow ball for a living. Fair play to them for being so good but a bit of humility wouldn't go astray. They want to restrict the hand that feeds them (i.e. the public who pay for this nonsense) - get a proper life!

Wicor - no, I'm not taking the mick. It's not just the big-earners this affects, but the players who have to slug it out on the Challenger tour events in order to try and qualify for the ATP tour events. I pay to see these players, so effectively I contribute to their earnings and I want good quality tennis, not 18 players pulling out of a grand slam because they're unable to play.

I choose to watch and to pay these players, if you don't like it then stick to the sports you don't mind paying to see

I never understand how you can have 6wks for the Clay season, then Paris, then 2 wks for Wimbledon, it's crazy, from the slowest high bouncing courts to low and fast grass.
Wimbledon is so old fashion and rigid, wouldn't it be great to have 6wks of grass tournaments leading into Wimbledon!!! its would be great for the game but also give the players a week to recover too

25 You want to talk facts here are the only facts which I go by slam totals Federer 16, Nadal 10, Djokovic 4, Murray 0. Yes Masters series are important and Andy has won plenty of those and all credit to him but I'll bet he would exchange all his titles for on Slam. But the greats are measured by the number of slams they win, actually you don't seem to have read the part of my post where I said how talented he is more so then many slam winners. Why be so aggresive about stating your opinion?

Oh my god, who the hell cares? If they want to strike, let them, but please do it around June next year so we're spared another 2 weeks of hype over Andy Murray's Wimbledon chances. Seriously, let them strike.

No 33.
"Why be so aggresive about stating your opinion?" Quoting youself.
"You want to talk facts here are the ONLY facts which I go by"......Again quoting yourself.
That sounds quite aggresive to me......

The logical question to ask is from what year WOULD it be possible to rejig the schedule as you describe?

Clearly not 2012. Probably 2015 in my judgement.

That won't help the current top crop.

Which says you need an interim solution for the current batch of players and a determination to agree a rejig by Wimbledon 2012.

If tennis doesn't care enough about the health of its players to do that, it's not much of a circus, is it?

No.36

The point is, is that it is a circus!!!!!!

Overpaid and over-rated people are involved from the top, down to the ground roots...

Why do people who have no interest in tennis, comment on tennis blogs? Seriously, do you not see the phenomenal irony in going to the lengths you do to say you do not care?

"Why do people who have no interest in tennis, comment on tennis blogs? Seriously, do you not see the phenomenal irony in going to the lengths you do to say you do not care?"

I like tennis. I enjoy playing tennis, I just don't enjoy the perpetual hype surrounding Andy Murray and I can think of few things more boring to watch than tennis on TV (or worse, tennis on radio!). F1 springs to mind, I suppose.

Ultimately, this is a BBC site and we all pay the licence fee. If we want to express our dislike of tennis coverage then we have every right. Of course I don't expect the licence fee to cover only things I enjoy (frankly, it covers almost nothing I enjoy anyway), but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to express my opinion when confronted with a link to this blog from the main page.

If overpaid, overhyped tennis players want to have a tantrum and a little strike then let them go ahead and see how many people outside of the immediate tennis circle actually give a rats ass. I can't imagine anyone foaming at the mouth to see tennis any time soon. Or if they are, they should probably see a doctor.

39.
At 20:45 19th Sep 2011, yottskry wrote:

"Why do people who have no interest in tennis, comment on tennis blogs? Seriously, do you not see the phenomenal irony in going to the lengths you do to say you do not care?"

I like tennis. I enjoy playing tennis, I just don't enjoy the perpetual hype surrounding Andy Murray and I can think of few things more boring to watch than tennis on TV (or worse, tennis on radio!). F1 springs to mind, I suppose.

Ultimately, this is a BBC site and we all pay the licence fee. If we want to express our dislike of tennis coverage then we have every right. Of course I don't expect the licence fee to cover only things I enjoy (frankly, it covers almost nothing I enjoy anyway), but that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to express my opinion when confronted with a link to this blog from the main page.

If overpaid, overhyped tennis players want to have a tantrum and a little strike then let them go ahead and see how many people outside of the immediate tennis circle actually give a rats ass. I can't imagine anyone foaming at the mouth to see tennis any time soon. Or if they are, they should probably see a doctor.

_______________

So...you don't care then.

And you went to all that effort.

Now, because you pay the licence fee, you may post a comment on every single BBC blog out there, on any subject. It's your prerogative after all.

From the cynical to the sarcastic to the reasoned: this has got nothing to do with being overpaid. People who can't or don't want to grasp the issue at hand will always boil something like this down to money. Money, after all, doesn't help these tennis players recover faster. How much they're paid, won't stop them from getting repetitive strain injuries. The public laps up the sport, and the right people i.e. the tennis players, get the slice of the pie they deserve. Much like footballers. We would all rather the tennis players get paid as much of the pot as possible rather than administrators or for want of a better word, parasites.

Now, another complete non-issue is the "overhyping" of Andy Murray at Wimbledon. For a start, it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with this situation, so refrain from saying it (unless you want to play the licence fee-free speech card again, after all, it is your prerogative).

Now parachute yourself into a Peston blog and claim you don't care about the overhyping of the economic issues, and remind everyone it is your right to spew such nonsense because you're a licence fee payer. Go on, it will make you feel better.

But please, please, please, take your boring cynicism away from here.

Unless you'd like to talk about the issue at hand, of course.

What I find interesting/intriguing is that its the "youngsters" of 24/5 who are complaining about the crowded schedule but I haven't yet heard a word from the "old man" of 30 who made the long trip Down Under to help Switzerland get back into the World Group - more than twice the journey that Messrs Murray/Nadal/Djokovic had to make.

Fed4ever - Yes, Federer has complained about the schedule most notably a couple of years ago, but recently his complaints have centred aroung the US Open and it's poor scheduling.

@Ed "My message is, and it relates to all walks of life, not just sports people, if you go into a career and earn the big bucks, do not whinge or whine when the going gets tough. Or you think it is tough, because believe me, not one of you have seen the real world."

That is the reality of your world because you did not have the talent to make it as a sports pro. You are an average Joe, on an average wage. However, that is not the only "real" world. Tennis pros also live in a real world with physical and mental pressures that you know nothing of because you did not have the innate ability, dedication and commitment to experience that level. So please, fall off your envious and sanctimonious proleterian stall and acknowledge that there are other worlds that have as much reality as your humdrum life. The only difference is this - the top tennis pros are rich beyond your wildest imagining. They work as hard, if not harder, (I suspect a lot harder) than you and you burn with jealously of them.

Given that the discussions about too much tennis are the same as have been happening for years now, and the lack of a single governing body to actually drive the change that is needed, it seems to me that the only logical thing to do is to revert to a full 12-month a year calendar like golf has, tell the players they have to play in a minimum number of events and leave it to them to decide which tournaments they play in.

Were you to look seriously at changing the calendar, it seems to me that the change would have to start from the four Grand Salms. But I think there are too many vested interests to actually make that happen.

I do think all of those who are moaning about these pampered millionaires are missing the point. It has little to do with how many actual tournaments they play but it is all about being able to perform their best, week in week out, and trying to stay fit enough to compete.

The speed and competition at the top of the men's game is at an all time high and, if we really want the grand slams to be the peak of tennis, then we have to let the players prepare for them properly, with enough time for rest and practice.

I think we should lose at least 4 compulsories from the calendar and, the way things were in New York this year, maybe to drop the US Open and make the Masters the 4th Grand Slam.

You know, people who live in the West should have no right to complain about anything. After all, there's literally billions of people in the world who'd chop off their right arms to live in the comparative luxury that we enjoy. You don't have to worry about about where your next meal is coming from or whether your water is clean? You don't realise how lucky you are.

Anyway on topic. The schedule is obviously not right. The problem is that many of the tournaments that people suggest we get rid of, Indian Wells and Miami to name just two, have a rich history and as such it would be difficult to move/remove them. And whilst it would be nice to have a longer grass court season, grass courts are expensive to maintain. And Queens could never be a Masters event, it's not big enough and there's no room to expand.

Maybe they could have 6 Masters events in the year and alternate venues in alternate years? One year IW one year Miami, one year Rome one year Madrid. Not perfect I know but maybe better than the status quo?

Chris1977

The 'agressiveness' comes from tired old comments about Murray that completely undermines what a great player he was

For instance, you cannot say he is a long way off the Top 3, when he has a better current (2011) record than one of them. It just makes you look stupid

Yes, he's a Slam failure. But do you really think Federer would have been as dominant as this if his three rivals had been around in 2003-2006? (as opposed to Nadal for just 2006)

Doesn't the fact that only 7 players have made the SF's of all the Slams in the year and FOUR of them are the current Top 4

Or that Murray is 8th on the all time winners of the Masters series

Or that Murray is the only person to have beaten Djokovic, along with Nadal this year

Respect the guy for goodness sake. His skills are god given, the way he can caress a Tennis ball are the correct side of McEnroe and Federer

Unfortunately he is in the toughest era ever

Wouldn't it be a truly wonderful event if this lot went on strike... a more overpaid, boring, grunting cartel of individuals I've yet to see...if you strike please don't come back you will not be missed by me (oh and take the "ladies" with you....they are even worse)

I'm pretty certain that 'pjmspencer' doesn't know the difference between a sliced serve and sliced ham!!

Anyone know which event the "top four" were all clapping it in the photo on this blog article? Why isn't Federer clapping too?!?!

Regarding the issue in hand, I don't know enough about the behind-the-scenes aspect of tennis tournament scheduling - however I do think the grass court season seems under-represented - but maybe that's part of the reason Wimbledon is viewed with such prestige? Either way I agree with a few points others have made so far - mainly that the "top four" striking are also representing the face of all tennis players on the tour, and using their influence in order to make the sport fairer for all the tennis althetes on the ATP Tour.

The Williams sister effectively went on strike a couple of years ago, an action that has made a farce of the women's seedings.

Nobody forces any player to play any tournament. It is all their personal choice which tournaments they want to play in.

Quit whinging, and just play tennis when you want.

Not many people in this world have that choice.

So what if ur ranking slips a bit, if u perform well in Grand slams, you will do really well in the rankings.

Surely 4 tournaments a year is not too much hard work?

Next thing will be footballers wanting 6 months off a year!

52.
At 00:48 20th Sep 2011, Paul Smith wrote:

Nobody forces any player to play any tournament. It is all their personal choice which tournaments they want to play in.

Quit whinging, and just play tennis when you want.

Not many people in this world have that choice.

So what if ur ranking slips a bit, if u perform well in Grand slams, you will do really well in the rankings.

Surely 4 tournaments a year is not too much hard work?

_______________________________

Nobody forces anybody to do anything, in a reasonable democratic society. Nobody forces you to work, but you probably do. Why? Because it's the best for you. You do what is best for you. If you were in a union that threatened to strike for better working conditions, you would strike. These tennis players, who are phenomenons no less, want what is best for them. OK, you may not see this as a great hardship, but I'm sure they don't either, they just want a compromise. You may view this as greed, but really, it isn't. If there are benefits to be drawn from a compromise where players play in less tournaments and there is no detrimental affect to their ranking - the key issue at hand - then who is anyone to complain about it being a bad thing?

But no, people will always drop their cynicism in where it isn't needed and have their say. I understand the cynical and negative reaction to stories like these. It stems from a lack of understanding, a personal dissatisfaction and a determination to be heard, to stand out from the crowd.

Gavelaa u missed the point. The point is, if these event organisers want to put the tournaments on let them. If fans dont turn up because big players are not there, the event organisers have to deal with that and choose whether to host the event or not next year, we live in a supply and demand world.

It is up to the players which event that want to play in.

The fact that these top players want to hold event organisers for ransom, because they are worried about their ranking, thats what I dont agree with.

Just dont turn up for the event, and see what happens to the event would be the noble thing to do.

This reaction from players, just makes them look smug and arrogant and above the sport.

No performer is ever above the sport. That goes for footballers, Rugby players, athletes, and Boxers, including Floyd Mayweather after Saturdays debacle!

look to the ladies game and take the lead of Sarena Williams.

only play the tournaments that matter, claiming injury at other times.

before you start i know shes had bad injuries in the past 2 years but she has been doing this her whole career, as has her sister.

if these 2 heavy wieghts of the ladies game can pick and choose, then the heavy wieghts of the men's game should follow suit.

The term "top four " in relation to mens tennis strikes me as a Very British expression. I wonder if they talk this way in Argentina ( ie I wonder if they would want to swap del Potro for Murray ) I also wonder if they talk of a "top one " regarding the womens game in Denmark

Call me old fashioned but I reckon the name of the game is winning majors

The schedule definitely needs a revamp as key tournaments seem to be randomly spread. Not sure what the specific gripes by the organisers are about timings - surely they want the top players so paying customers and corporates want to get involved.

One thing I don't get is there are only a max of 17 mandatory events plus a couple of Davis cup weekends - surely this allows players flexibility to manage their calendars without having to talk about a strike. Would it be a strike if they didn't turn up to a non-mandatory event???

@47 banbrotam - excellent comment.

It's so frustrating to see so many Brits say ridiculous comments that Murray is simply not good enough to win a Slam.

The fact is that he is in an era with who most would regard as the best ever player, with who many would argue is the second best player ever, and with the player who is currently dominating them both. At the same time, he is consistantly better than the rest and has an excellent record in the Grand Slams.

My own personal opinion is that Murray finds it much more difficult to conquer Nadal than the other two, in the same way that Federer can't seem to get the better of Nadal and Nadal is currently struggling against Djokovic. Luck of the draw has dictated that Murray is constantly pitted against Nadal in the semis. Yes, you can say it's all about winning the Slams, but to win any Masters event given the level of competition in today's game is an incredible achievement.

All the "experts" who harp on about tabloid hype over Murray should listen to those in the know: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic regularly say that his time will come, while McEnroe - who played in an era with three all-time greats: himself, Borg and Connors - says at every major that the level is far greater than it ever was when he played and that the the top players are better than he ever was. Murray is not over-hyped, he is an excellent player who has to find a way to get past two of the top three in just three days if he wants to win a major - not such an easy task.

This era of tennis is outstanding, where matches between the top guys just leave you in awe and British tennis fans, and those who like to think they know the sport, should be proud that Murray is even close to the other guys. Compare with football where Barca are currently the single outstanding team, and then realise that Murray has three Barcelonas (when it comes to majors) in front of him.

It's very British to knock our greatest sports stars. Think back toTim Henman, who had a very successful tennis career, yet is regarded by many as a failure. The man reached a number of Grand Slam semi finals and number four in the world although, in his case, was probably not good enough to win a Slam, but why should that detract from a superb career? Henman's best performances normally came at Wimbledon at a time when, unfortunately for him, Sampras ruled supreme and completely dominated the grass court game.

Murray's era is far tougher than Henman's and he is performing better than admirably. Let's not forget that, unlike in Henman's era when the best player did nothing at the French, the three above him are capable of winning on every surface. Federer and Nadal have won all four, while not many would argue against Djokovic being able to do the same now. It's not like Murray can go into any Slam thinking, "well x isn't very good on this surface so I have a better chance".

Murray undoubtedly has the ability to win a Slam, whether he actually does or not remains to be seen. But why don't the public get behind him and acknowledge what a talent he is. If he wins a Slam great, if not, then how unfortunate that he wasn't able to, but let's not forget that he is contributing to an unrivalled era.

On a final note, imagine if the England football team reached four consecutive semi-finals. Maybe not a great example, but I think they would be regarded fairly highly. And this is in an era when Brazil are nothing like what they were and Argentina seem unable to make the most of their talent, while Spain are the only exceptional team.

Something practical that could be done here is to take a leaf out of the girl's book...

Remember all the talk about burnout with the Ladies tour years back?

The WTA took a very responsible step in helping with the recovery of these top athletes - they did their homework and sought out a proven supplier of quality nutritional supplements (whose products are guaranteed free of any banned substances) - then approved them for supply to the entire tour - creating a totally level playing field, whilst at the same time practically assisting the ladies.

Maybe the calendar is too hard to deal with, but something has to be done. At the moment the players can do very little to help themselves.

Oh please do me a favour there is a big world outside your comfy tennis world, will the vast majority of people around the world miss you not being around, dont think so, go on call our bluff and strike PLEASE.

I liked the suggestion of Gavelaa (comment #03), suggesting a season split by surface types, and with adequate breaks between each.

It's also important to remember that there is talk of a strike not for the financial gains of a few, but for the benefit of the many who struggle on the tour to make a decent living, as the comments at #29 and #31 point out.

The criticism by players of the Davis Cup schedule -as mentioned in the blog- is something of a non-event. If the players have changed their mind, and now approve of the ITF's stance, then great: everyone is pushing at the same open door. It seems churlish of the ITF to now raise it as a barrier to progress.

And the clapping? (comment #50). Probably at a year-end Masters Finals event, where you might typically get all four (or all 8) lined up together. Roger's probably not clapping because he's the one being applauded.

As much as I love tennis I kind of stop following it between the US open and the Aus open. They do need a decent break, not just to take expensive holidays as all the "they should get a proper job" crowd think but to train and spend serious time working on aspects of their game that they need to improve (like Andys 2nd serve please).

In other sports I think the end of the season is a big climax major event, and the start of the season a lot of excitement to see the effect of training and work during the "off" period. To me the tennis season kind of fizzles out and then a few weeks later fizzles back in. I'd like to see a schedule where theres 1 big end of season event after the US open, a clear break for them to holiday and train, and then a few non compulsory Aus open warm up events before opening the main season with the Aus open where we can see the results of the off-period training.

The slowness of playing surfaces is the biggest threat to present tennis players' health. Ironically, it is this same slowness that has elevated Nadal and Djokovic to their present status.

12. At 18:53 19th Sep 2011, chris_G wrote:
I also think it's worth pointing out that the schedule hasn't ratcheted up in the past couple of seasons; it's just that it's become popular to complain of the schedule.
--------------------
No, the difference is that the same 4 players are dominating every tournament, hence they are playing more matches. The quality is also much higher making the matches much harder and more physical, even Mcenroe has pointed this out by saying that Djokovic's year is much better than his.

@ Bazza001

I find your comments directed towards me offensive.

This is an open forum, we are all entitled to our opinion.

For you to personally slate my character, without actually knowing me, is beyond belief.

I respect anyones comments, but I will not respect or accept comments about me from somone who does not know me.

Do the world a favour and take the silver spoon about of your mouth, which you were so clearly born with.

Sorry, but 12 mandatory tournaments plus the four slams (which aren't indicated as manditory above) doesn't sound excessive to me.

/can peeps stop saying 'grand slam' for a single event please? GS is when you win all four... The US Open is not a 'grand slam'.

@15 "Player-power is a frightening prospect in some sports, but I don't get that worry so much with tennis players. Not sure why, but it seems that they have the interests of the sport at heart."

Haha don't make me laugh, they have their wallets very much at the centre of what they are doing. They play extra tournaments to gain extra money - simple as that.

Yes the scheduling 'could' be altered to ensure the top players have decent breaks but if there is a tournament in Dubai offering a shed load of money for all participants but it's at an incredibly inconvenient time do you think a single top player will turn it down??!!

Don't be ridiculous!!

Please stop complaining Nadal and Murray, tennis hasn't done you too bad has it? How many millions do you have? Please remember this sport is not just about the top 4, but also about the top 100 and top 1000, these players have to play lots of tournaments just to make a living and reducing the number of tournaments would affect them a lot more than the top ..... do you hear any lower ranked players asking for less tournaments? Nadal is going to have 4 weeks off now before the next masters so he can count his pennies...too much hard work rafa? I don't think so. If you don't like it then go and do something else, how about working down a mine 10 hours a day for 6 days a week?

They don't play for money - they play for the points to keep them in the top 4 - anyone of them can beat each other on a given day. If they remain top 4, they will probably avoid each other till the semi's of the major tourneys.

I hope they don't go down the 'Williams route' either - that way there will be a No 1 in the world that hasn't won a major event.

Maybe make the majors carry more points and reduce the masters tourneys to 6.

Finally - Olympics next year - another event to add in.

With regards to the Olympics we can all hope (tennis fans and non tennis fans) that this is well and truly dropped from the schedule. Never should a sport be included where the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of success within the sport.

Murray has / will move from Semi Finalist to Finalist
He will soon be Number 3 (and this will allow for More Finals)
He has the Strokes, The Stamina & with more determination (Insistance)
Everything is Possible ( Wimbeldon 2012) Top Priority

I fully agree with Michael Stich's comments this morning.
The game, although more powerful than before, that I accept, is subject to greater delays and time wasting than ever before.
Time in between points is now ridiculous - towel break, selection of one ball from 4 or 5 to serve etc. If they are a little bit tired out, the main court players can call for a review, that gives them a little break - especially when they take 30 seconds or so trying to examine a mark before calling for one. There are breaks after every set, irrespective whether the games are of an odd number, there are breaks (there shouldn't be - well done Serena & Venus Williams as the only ones to follow the rules) after the first game of every set and at 6-6, 9-9, 12-12 in tie breaks. They can, and do, have toilet breaks, usually when they want to wind up the opponent and keep them waiting. Trainer breaks - heck, even coaching breaks in some tournaments.
And - many still retire hurt.
Fitter they may be - stronger they are not to those of yesteryear.
Anybody who has not got my drift yet ...... I am not holding a lot of sympathy here.

Re: Australian Open

In an ideal world I would agree with moving the Aussie Open to March - the players get a longer break and enable a proper lead in to a grand slam and the weather is milder too.

But and there's always a but, but the dollars dictate that the Australian Open will fight tooth and nail for a January slot - its school holiday time which means more people going to the tennis including long days in corporate boxes and also more people at home to watch it which means $$$.

The obvious logic has its own issues on this one.

Who cares? I for one am bored and amazed by the daily BBC radio and TV broadcasts telling me how Murray or other non-entity UK tennis players are faring in incessant and mostly meaningless tennis tournaments around the world. For people who are not representing their country in what they do, in a minority sport in the UK, UK tennis players get far too much publicity for what they do versus other (far more successful) UK sportpeople. That's just the UK but that is maybe the problem globally - tennis PR is too powerful - convincing us and sponsors that it is a major sport when the reality is it probably isn't. Hopefully there will be an adjustment and we can get more sponsor money rerouted from tennis to more participatory sports like running, swimming, cycling, which better deserve coverage.....and the problem will be solved for spoilt tennis players....

1.At 18:06 19th Sep 2011, Vettel_the_wunder_crash_kid wrote:
Sorry to burst the bubble - the usage of "top-4 domination" is not right. Call it top-3+1. Andy is not to be said in the same league as the other three. But he is definitely better (a notch higher) than the rest of the top-4.

I think you'll find that if Andy matches Federer between now and the end of the season, he will finish 3rd and Federer will finish 4th in the year end rankings.

If the players striked during a BBC covered event, maybe then they may regret dropping F1 from the few sports they still cover...

Not a huge tennis fan, but enjoy most sports and do enjoy seeing a player at the top of their game...which you won't get if they are playing too much, just watch England in a world cup.

Anyway, I don't have a problem at all with the very top players saying they are playing too much and need a break. I find the comments about how much money they earn to be naive, jealous, and all the rest that has been stated before.

Put it this way, you turn up for work one day and the going rate for your job has just doubled or tripled. Tell me honestly that you would say, "hang on, I don't deserve to earn that much, I'll stay on x thank you".

However also bear in mind, that this would only be offered to the very best at your company, after all, we're not all great at what we do.

I'm an IT contractor who earns fantastic money, far more than I should and I freely admit it. I seriously believe that nurses, teachers, scientists etc should earn the sort of money I do...but they don't and that's life, unfair sometimes.

There's no point me turning down the money I can earn and I dare any of you complaining on here to say that you would either. And to be honest, if you did you're an even bigger fool than many of you are coming across on this blog.

@79 - England in a World Cup - I am sure you are talking about Wendyball - that is because they are no good, not because they are tired. The rugby team appear to do OK - Winners in 2003, runners-up in 2007 and it wouldn't surprise me if they are at least in the top 4 in this tournament.

While I do sympathize a bit with Andy Murray, what about all the players at the bottom of the (professional) pyramid? What do they think? Does more tennis not mean more money for more tennis players? From a financial point of view, Andy Murray is presumably now wealthy enough to be able to choose to not play.

But if there is no "all-powerful governing body", then who (and how) is making it "mandatory" for any one player to compete in any one tornament?
If, for any reason, Murray decided to, say, not play in the French Open, then would Wimbledon ban him ? I thougt Wimbledon was a private institution who could have anyone in their tournament who meets their eligibility rules.
I'm confused.

hammersmith jack

"Who cares?" - 81 people so far on this blog alone.

"I for one am bored and amazed by the daily BBC radio and TV broadcasts telling me how Murray or other non-entity UK tennis players are faring in incessant and mostly meaningless tennis tournaments around the world." - Filter for the sports you are interested in then.

"For people who are not representing their country in what they do," - Davis Cup???

"in a minority sport in the UK, UK tennis players get far too much publicity for what they do versus other (far more successful) UK sportpeople." - The level of success of British participants in a sport is not the leading indicator as to how much media coverage it gets. A good example being darts. A bit of a no-mark sport that a minority are interested in, absolutely dominated for well over 10 years by one phenomenal British man. But he doesn't deserve to be headlined on the BBC website for every tournament he wins, people just aren't that interested. HOWEVER, it is on the website if you want to go and look at darts.

"That's just the UK but that is maybe the problem globally" - Tennis is massively popular in other countries compared to here. Considering we have one of the majors in this country, participation levels in tennis are actually quite low compared to other nations (factors like weather obviously don't help), suggesting we should actually do more in terms of funding for tennis here instead of your proposal below.

" - tennis PR is too powerful - convincing us and sponsors that it is a major sport when the reality is it probably isn't. Hopefully there will be an adjustment and we can get more sponsor money rerouted from tennis to more participatory sports like running, swimming, cycling, which better deserve coverage.....and the problem will be solved for spoilt tennis players...." - I recognise that running, swimming, and cycling are good ways of keeping fit and as such would not be averse to doing any of them. However, to suggest that because a sport has more people 'participating' at a very, very basic level it should receive masses more funding and TV coverage is quite simply ludicrous. What percentage of people who go swimming could name more than 3 current swimmers? Almost everyone walks every day. Should we throw a load of money at walking to make it higher profile?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on certain sports, obviously. But for me, how quickly you can do something is not as much of a sport as something which requires supreme physical conditioning comb

No need for a strike, these 4 are so much better than the rest, they can just agree amongst themselves which how many tournaments they'll skip, or boycott particularly badly-scheduled ones. They'll lose ranking points, but not enough to lose their top-4 position. Sure, these tournaments are mandatory, but punishing all of the best players in the world would be completely farcical.

#73 - I think Murray is great - comfortably the best British tennis player in living memory, yet still slated by his fellow countrymen for reasons that are difficult to fathom. However, I don't see how moving from WR4 to WR3 is going to help him win tournaments. Unless Nole or Rafa get injured he'll still face one or the other in the semi of every major event.

As the top four consistently get to the latter stages of tournaments they are playing more tennis than the less successful players who probably depend more on the ATP tournaments.

Although previously the top men used to play a lot more doubles and arguably played more matches, the game has entered a new phase where the sheer athleticism of the top 4 is way above anything we have seen before and as they drive each other on to higher and higher levels it inevitably takes its toll on their bodies.

I am sure there could be scheduling adjustments to help alleviate the problems or perhaps the top ranked players could get some exemptions - however the interests of the the top 4 players should not be put ahead of those of the lesser players.

I am not sure striking would be a good PR stunt..

Yes they might get tired playing long and often exciting game but they are paid pretty well.

Presume they could just choose the events more carefully.

Trouble is like most sports tennis is about money and suspect they get pressured into playing one/two extra tournaments.

Hunger to excel versus hunger to accumulate is an age old human dilemma.The principle of Tantum Quantum is very much needed in modern day sports and games. Running after mammon all the time has its price.

Tennis players, cricketers, footballers and other sports icons are all human and mortal. Their bodies and minds need to be taken care of by their sponsors and organizers in the powerful entertainment industry.

Fellow humans and sports enthusiasts would love to see their heroes and role models performing on the big stage with gusto and over a longer span of time. Giving time and space for the performing bodies to recuperate is vital if sports and games are to be taken to the next level.


Dr. Cajetan Coelho

47.At 22:35 19th Sep 2011, banbrotam....

'Or that Murray is the only person to have beaten Djokovic, along with Nadal this year'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I suggest banbrotam that if you are a tennis fan (which clearly you can't be if you feel Murray actually has 'real' tennis ability), you may want to get your stats right.... Djoko lost to Murray WHEN HE RETIRED INJURIED...hardly a win now is it! Nadal HAS NOT won a match against Djoko this year...6 played 6 lost! Federer is THE ONLY player to actually beat Djoko in a match this year (French SF)...

...so please, feel free to come back onto the blog when you actually have something correct to say!

PS - Worth also mentioning that your 'top man' has only played in 3 grand slam finals, being easily beaten in straight sets in all 3! (2 of which by 16-time grand-slam winner Federer, who by the sounds of things you feel is somehow 'behind' Murray in the standings!! As other people have commented, MURRAY IS WAY BEHIND THE TOP 3 in both skill, ability and results/titles (titles that actually mean something that is!), so you simply have no arguement.

Actually Murray is not way behind the top 3, he is very close, check the ranking points. He is closer to Fed than Fed is to Rafa or Rafa to Djokovic, in fact I think he will take the no. 3 spot quite soon.

Murray is just annoyed because out of the top 4 he is by far the least popular amongst fans and can command much lower guarantees than the top 3. When Federer played Estoril a few years ago he received a $1m guarantee to play. Ticket sales rocketed so the tournament was a success. Nadal can command similar amounts just for turning up to a 250 event. Murray doesnt have the same pull and wouldnt be paid a 6th of what Nadal and Federer get just for turning up.

The Bangkok tournament is backed by some rich Asians and is one of the few tournaments that's actually paying Murray silly money just to play because they cant tempt any of the top 3 there. Each tournament has a budget with which to pay guarantees and because Nadal/fed/djoko are sensibly resting Murray will be getting most of this budget. This is where his argument falls down. If hes bothered about fatigue why is he playing this event when he could do with a week off? Answer: £££. The chance of Murray winning more than one round in Bangkok is practically zero. He'll take the money and run off to Shanghai where he'll probably win another Masters Series which none of the top 3 care about - the only kind he wins actually.