Does the ATP calendar need to support the players more?

The ATP players have long spoken about the need for a longer off-season, and it’s been one of the most widely discussed topics in the most recent years. It’s been such a cause of concern for the players that for the first time, three of the highest profile players, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic nominated themselves to be on the ATP Players Council in a bid to create change and make a difference.

Given the recent injury problems of Rafael Nadal and the recent announcement of Roger Federer’s withdrawal from the tournaments in Tokyo and Shanghai, it’s time to evaluate the ATP calendar again.

There are many sides of the story to this argument, and from a media perspective it’s always tempting to go with the players, given that they’re the stars of our sport. It’s obvious from their point of view that injuries are becoming more of a problem with the increasing physical demand and athleticism required of the sport.

There are many issues to consider, and the intention of this article is not to give a conclusive opinion but instead to consider each and every point available.

The 2009 ATP World Tour / ITF schedule

• Despite talks of improving the current ATP schedule, things appear to be heading in the opposite direction with increased mandatory tournaments, greater penalties for withdrawals and more travel required with the players, now with a mandatory Asian season due to the Shanghai tournament.
  
  
• Shorter breaks between Davis Cup, and the tournament preceding it, changed to a half week turnaround instead of one and a half weeks. Considering that the biggest cause of injuries is the change of surfaces, this is a controversial issue. The number of players that were sporting knee injuries during the US Open season as a result of the surface transition from clay, grass to hardcourt was alarmingly high this year, including players such as Gilles Simon, Fernando Gonzalez, Gael Monfils and Jose Acasuso.

• The off-season is equally as short as it was last year, and it’s the only opportunity for players to build up their strength and endurance, create that fitness base for the year. As much as the players have voiced their frustration, would players necessarily enjoy the greater extended period, more weeks of fitness training without a tournament in sight? It’d surely be a system that would reward the most focused and hard-working players. Up to some point, enough weeks need to be allocated to allow players to have a proper holiday but not more than that.

The players

• An overwhelming majority of players expressed their preference for back-to-back tournaments and a shorter break in between Davis Cup and the preceding tournament, so it’s not really the ATP’s fault but more so, a voting matter. Players have consistently shown that smart scheduling isn’t the highest of their priorities. Instead spending less time in a particular continent or region seems to be of greater interest.
  
  Ideally the best schedule would be playing on-and-off tennis with alternating weeks of rest and tournament tennis, but this doesn’t suit to fit the mindset of a tennis player. They prefer to play mini-seasons of tennis, and only take the breaks that are necessary for them to survive physically. Then take into account players picking the tournaments they like, building up form for Grand Slams, appearance fees and prizemoney and somehow smart scheduling becomes lost somewhere.

• Despite the mandatory events, the ATP calendar is still essentially a pick-and-choose system, planned by players themselves. At some point, players have to take responsibility for their own scheduling. In my view, any player that doesn’t qualify for the Year-End World Tour Final should certainly be capable of creating their own longer off-season if they wished to do so.

• Lower ranked players can benefit from playing for prizemoney, or may feel reduced effects of fatigue with fewer consecutive matches at each event.

The entertainment business / the spectators

• How would you feel if the tournament from your home city was taken away? It’s a spectator sport and no player is obligated to play any particular 250 event - these types of events forms the majority of events calendar. Therefore, in theory, any number of them could exist. In my opinion, tournament attendance is the best method of attracting casual fans, people that are more interested in the occasion and spotting stars rather than the matches themselves.

• Prizemoney is driven by revenue, sponsorships and television deals so the financial side will always be the highest priority. This is basically another way of saying that the players’ concerns will always have to be less important, and revenue is driven by the participation of the top players. This explains the increasing trend towards mandatory participation.

• One could argue that money could be invested into promoting the second tier players like Fernando Verdasco and Gilles Simon, but this broad approach would likely produce less effective results, because promotion tends to need to be streamlined to a select group of players. It is also difficult to impress casual viewers and players need to back it up with great results in the Grand Slams, not to mention the addition of an eye-catching game.

Do you think the ATP calendar should be shortened – and is it more of a players’ responsibility or is the ATP largely to blame for this?