Tennis Tournament Concepts

1. Professional tournaments are ranked according to their level of importance to players and to fans.
2. Higher ranked tournaments offer higher prize money and ranking points to players and so attract higher ranked players.
3. The level of revenue received by tournament organizers - from television rights, sponsors and ticket sales, concessions, etc. - is directly related to the ranking of tournaments. As fan appeal is also directly related to the level of players participating, higher ranked tournaments attract a larger number of fans. Grand Slam events attract a worldwide audience due to the certainty that they will attract the world's highest ranked players. Lower ranked tournaments - with progressively lower prize money and ranking points - attract lower ranked players and consequently lower levels of fan interest, sponsorship and attendance. The difference is extreme and, surprisingly, has little to do with the quality of play. Many of the participants at the top events also play in lower ranked events such as Challengers, Satellite and Futures. While fans will eagerly pay and travel to attend a top event, they will show little or no interest in a lower ranked event even when it is held in their local area and admission is free. This is so in spite of the difference in the actual level of play being undetectable to the average fan (there is sound evidence for this proposition) and in spite of many of the players being common to higher and lower levels. For example, Simon Larose of Canada played Andre Agassi in an exciting match at the Tennis Masters Series event in Montreal in August 2003 (after beating Gustavo Kuerten in the first round): value to tournament winner - $400,000, admission cost - $15 - $150, attendance at match - 8,000+. Simon Larose also played Heinrich Heyl in an even more exiting match (I watched them both) 6 months earlier at the Star Island Tennis Classic in Kissimmee, FL: value to tournament winner - $1,300, admission cost - free, attendance (excluding other players) - 5.
4. A player with a world ranking of 1,200 can apply to play at Wimbledon. Of course, there is no possibility of him actually being accepted (unless he is very special - more on this subject under section 9 below). Wimbledon has a main draw limit of 128 players and most of the 128 world's top players want 'their' spot. With first round losers earning around $12,000, that is not too surprising..! There is, therefore, no room for lower ranked players. Higher ranked players get first choice. Without exceptional ability, lower ranked players will generally never have an opportunity of playing in a major tournament. It is a harsh reality of the professional tour that the majority of players who play a professional match will never earn enough from playing tennis to even cover their costs and expenses.
5. Unreasonable burdens are placed on players competing for places in 'qualifying tournaments. Generally, they have to travel to the site of the tournament and 'sign-in' on the day before qualifying play begins. When entries close, entrants are ranked according to World, National and other available rankings and a cut-off established with the highest ranked players being accepted into the draw. The remainder do not play. At a recent 'futures' event, 186 players registered for the 128 places in the qualifying draw. 58 players - some of whom had traveled many hundreds of miles and spent hundreds of dollars for a chance of of playing - did not have the opportunity to participate.
6. The top rated players in a tournament are 'seeded' according to their ability. This means that the tournament decides the order in which they believe players will finish the tournament. The likely winner is seeded '1', the likely losing finalist, '2', the semifinal losers 3' and '4', etc. In a 128 draw, the top 32 players are usually seeded. Most people think that 'who plays who' is totally determined by a random draw. This is not so. The 'draw' determines which players will play each other in the first round. Players names are drawn at random and placed on the draw in the order they are drawn - from top to bottom. However, seeded players are excluded from the random drawing and are placed in the draw using a separate - and quite complicated process - before the random drawing begins (a 128 draw is used for this example). The player seeded '1' is placed at the top of the draw and the player seeded '2' is placed in the bottom position. One of the two players seeded '3' and '4' is drawn and placed at the top of the 2nd quarter of the draw (line 33). The remaining player is placed at the top of the 3rd quarter of the draw (line 96). The placing of seeds continues with the first drawn of seeds '5' and '6' being allocated to the top of the draw, the other to the bottom - the first drawn of seeds '7' and '8' is allocated to the top of the draw, the other to the bottom. The first drawn of seeds '5' and '7' is placed at the top of the top 8th of the draw (line 17) and the other at the top of the 3rd 8th of the draw (line 49) The first drawn of seeds '6' and '8' is placed at the top of the 5th 8th of the draw (line 80) and the other at the top of the 7th 8th of the draw (line 112). Keeping up with this??? I'll spare you the details of the rest of the process and just say that he remaining seeds are allocated to their respective positions... The random drawing of the remaining players then begins - with the first drawn being placed on line 2 and continuing downwards with drawn players being placed in unfilled lines on the draw.
7. If there are not enough entries to fill all the lines in the designated size of the draw, then 'byes' are allocated to the highest ranked players. If, for example, there are three empty lines on the draw, the remaining players are placed in the draw so that the three empty lines are left next to the top three seeded players so that they do not have an opponent in the first round and automatically advance to the next round. Byes are a rare occurrence in the highest tournaments because there are many more entrants than places available but, incredibly are sometimes deliberately built into tournament draws even though there are ample players to fill a conventional draw. For example, the Bausch and Lomb Championship - a major WTA Tier 2 event with almost $600,000 in prize money - has a 48 player main draw. 16 byes are given to the top 16 seeded players so that they automatically advance to the 2nd round.
8. In the first round of the tournament, Player 1 plays Player 2. Player 3 plays Player 4, and so on. The winner advances to the next round, the loser is eliminated from the tournament. This continues through succeeding rounds until only two players remain. The winner of this match is the tournament winner. Players receive progressively larger prize money amounts and ranking points as they progress through succeeding rounds of the tournament. Ranking points are earned for progress - and not for the manner in which progress is made. A player receives the same ranking points if they progress as a result of a bye or a default or an injury to their opponent and whether they win by one point or by a score of 6-0 6-0.
9. In all tournaments, the tournament reserves a number of 'wild-card' places in the draw for players that they want to place in the draw who would not otherwise qualify to play based on their rank or ability. While they are sometimes used to give a promising newcomer an exceptional opportunity, they are just as often 'sold' for cash. There are even examples of whole tournaments being staged and financed to provide a wild card opportunity for someone with good financial backers looking for an opportunity of 'earning' ranking points by just playing a single match in a tournament.
10. A number of places in a tournament draw (generally 4 places per 32 players) are also reserved for the best performing players from a 'qualifying' event usually held immediately before the start of the main tournament. In a 128 draw, for example, 16 players are generally entered from the preceding qualifying tournament. There are frequently many more players in a qualifying tournament than in the main event. Many $10,000 'futures' events have qualifying rounds of 128 players competing for 4 places in a 32 player main event. Many such tournaments rely on the entry fees of so many hopefuls (97% of whom will go away with nothing) to subsidize the main draw event for the 28 selected, higher-ranked players.
11. Players gain ranking points as a result of their progression through rounds of a tournament. The higher ranked a tournament, the more points will be gained as a result of a win. For example, in a $10,000 men's futures event, a first round loser will not gain any points; a quarter finalist will gain 2 points and the eventual winner 12 points. A first round loser of a $50,000 Challenger will receive 1 point - emphasizing the value of a wild card in such an event as that single point will give the player an ATP world ranking of 1432 (as of January 1, 2004) and provide entry advantages over others into professional tournaments even though the player has never won a single match in his entire professional career... A single ATP point will, under the current rules, take precedence over 100 (or any number of) National Ranking points so that the wild -card 'winner' will receive preference over all Nationally ranked players - with considerably better records and demonstrated ability. At the other ed of the spectrum, a US Open first round loser will receive 5 points. A first round winner will receive 35 points (enough, on its own, for a world ranking of 550 and thus illustrating the significant advantage that a favorable draw can make to a player's ranking - and future tournament entry status). In assigning ranking points, no account is taken of the relative strength of a player's opponent or the actual score or even if they won a match at all. Players receive points solely based on the round in which they are eliminated.

Having established a few facts about tournament organization, we can now examine some of the results of the application of these rules.

Fairness

The way in which a professional tennis tournament is structured is basically unfair. The current tournament entry 'system' does not fairly or consistently recognize either ranking or ability. For example, in a recent 'futures' tournament, only 14 of the 32 first round main draw participants were there because of an earned ranking. The remainder were a combination of qualifiers, special exemptions, lucky losers and wild card recipients with money or influence...Its unfairness also results from 'features' that are deliberately introduced to produce a desired outcome:

1. Seeded (highest ranked) players are not subject to the 'luck of the draw' to determine who plays who. They are placed in the draw prior to the random drawing taking place and in a way that guarantees that they will only face weaker opponents in the early rounds. As long as they win against their weaker opponents, their placement in the draw ensures that they will not meet a stronger opponent until the round determined in advance by the tournament organizers. For example, a player ranked '7' can not meet a higher ranked player until the quarter-finals. They will then will meet a player seeded either '4', '5' or '8' (or someone who has beaten that seeded player or someone who has beaten a player that has beaten that seeded player....!). A player seeded '2' is guaranteed not to meet the player seeded '1' before the final. The purpose of this system is to ensure that higher ranked players - who are presumably more popular with, and attract more, fans - do not meet (and eliminate) each other in the early rounds. Put another way, it ensures that, as far as it is possible to fix the outcome in advance, higher ranked, popular players do not disappear from the tournament before the tournament promoter has received the maximum amount of benefit (revenue) from their presence in the tournament.

2. Seeded (or highest ranked) players receive the benefit of any available byes that may be in the draw. This means that the higher ranked player may have to play less matches than their weaker opponents and be 'fresher' and less fatigued than their weaker opponent in the 2nd round who will inevitable have had to play a first round match in order to advance to the 2nd round. Some tournaments deliberately introduce byes to provide advantages to higher ranked players. Lower ranked players are therefore much more likely to meet stronger players than they would if the draw was not 'rigged' to avoid stronger players meeting each other in the early rounds. Such a biased system positively discriminates against the chances of lower ranked players competing equally.Once a field of players has been assembled, no account is taken of ability except to give an advantage to higher ranked players. All players are immediately and completely eliminated from a tournament by losing any single match. It does not matter if the player was beaten 6-0, 6-0 and without even winning a single point or if he lost in a third set tiebreak 6-0, 5-7, 6-7 and, in fact, won more games than his opponent (17 to 14 in this example). The result is the same - he is eliminated. Similarly, there is no account taken of the strength of a player's opponent. As a result of the way in which the draw is made (and assuming there are no byes), the first non-seeded player drawn will have to play the top seeded player in the first round. The second player to be drawn will play the third player to be drawn - also a non-seeded player. The first player is almost certain to be eliminated in the 1st round. The second and third drawn players have a much better chance of survival to the 2nd round. Their good fortune will, however, be short-lived. The loser will be eliminated in the first round and the winner will meet the top seed in the second seed - and will likely follow the others on the bus home.

Fairness - The Bottom Line

The way in which the draw is made is designed to enhance the chances of higher ranked players progressing to the later stages of the tournament and the early elimination of lower ranked players for the financial benefit of the tournament.

Fan Appeal

Because lower ranked players are treated pretty much as 'draw-fillers' and 'cannon-fodder' for favored players and all the attention is therefore focused on the higher-ranked players, few receive any attention from fans unless they are drawn to play their more popular colleagues - and then only to the extent that they provide an opponent against which the higher-ranked player can demonstrate his superiority. In a black-or-white, win-or-lose situation, matches featuring lower-ranked players who have little chance of winning have little appeal to fans.For this reason, media coverage of the earlier rounds of a tournament is generally poor or non-existent. Coverage of many of the televised tournaments only begins at the quarter- or semi-final levels when higher-ranked players are expected to be playing equally higher-ranked players. With little or no opportunity of media exposure, lower-ranked players generate little fan appeal or following and, as a result, attendance, as well as media coverage, at lower-ranked tournaments is poor or non-existent. As professional tennis players are forced to tour the world as individuals to compete in events, there is no opportunity of generating a 'local' fan base that will turn out to see 'their' home team or sporting hero compete locally against visiting opponents as is the case with football and other team sports. The 'home' of a tennis player - beyond his nationality - is generally unknown and, any case, usually has little connection with the place of his birth, upbringing or family ties. The majority relocate to an area convenient for training and coaching facilities once they set their sights on a professional career. If they progress to the upper levels of their international sport, many will relocate to locations that offer tax, lifestyle or other incentives.

The Challenges

Given the facts discussed above, the challenges are:

To remove the unfair practices that discriminate against lower-ranked players
To more fairly reflect a player's actual performance in a match than a simple win/lose determination
To broaden the appeal of lower ranked tournaments that currently attract little or no fan or media interest.
To broaden the appeal of the early rounds of higher-ranked major tournaments
To broaden the appeal of lower-ranked players
To broaden the appeal of tennis matches generally

The Solution

In considering a solution, a few realities were recognized:
1. A true solution must meet all or most of the perceived challenges.

2. Only a radical solution can bring about the fundamental improvements that are needed to being about significant change.

3. The sport of tennis is resistant to change - because of its long-standing traditions and the conservatism of its governing bodies (how else could you explain the preservation of a scoring system that progresses 15-love, 30-love... deuce, advantage, etc... and is harder for a newcomer to learn than getting the ball over the net...). The author has been a USTA-certified referee and has presided over the officiating of tournaments. He can certify from personal experience that few certified officials truly know the rules and understand how to fairly apply them. A few half-hearted attempts have been made to correct perceived problems within the sport but they have invariably been ineffective - such as increasing the ball size or reducing air pressure to slow down the ball and make the first serve less of a dominant factor in men's tennis; and playing a tie-break in lieu of a third set to prevent "uninteresting' double matches over-running their allotted time and interfering with TV schedules of 'more important' singles duels. Such 'tinkering' with the rules has been ineffective and, in the author's opinion, merely demonstrates an unwillingness to take truly effective and decisive action.

The third reality is, therefore, ignored in order to provide a true solution to what the author believes is needed to revitalize professional tennis.

The proposals follow a hierarchy of importance (and potential controversy) and follow a 'natural' progression of needed changes to give effect to the 'higher', more important, proposals.

1. Determination of player pairings and progression in tournaments. Any system that relies solely on the 'luck of the draw' to determine pairings is inherently unfair. Where it is combined with a number of deliberate 'features' that give advantages to some players at the expense of others, it becomes significantly more so.

Proposal 1

The draw and seeding systems are abolished and replaced with a system whereby players may select their opponent. Players may select their opponent at each round of the tournament. Clearly, such a system would produce a very predictable - and uninteresting - results unless players have an incentive to 'seek out' opponents other than ones that they can most easily beat. The first incentive results from a revised ranking system as described in Proposal

Proposal 2
Players receive ranking points - and are, therefore, ranked - according to their actual performance in competitive matches taking account both the match score and the difference in ranking between the players. Ranking points are awarded based upon the actual difference in ability of the players as demonstrated in a match that is played between them rather than ion the mere progression of a player through a tournament irrespective of the caliber of the opponent or the actual score. For example, if a match of 21 games results in one player winning 13 and the other 8, then a ratio of 13 :8 would be a reasonable measure of their relative ability. As other matches take place between against these - and other - players, the relative strengths of the whole population of players would be measured and updated as matches take place. Given the high frequency of match play interaction between players, such a system would reliably reflect evolving and current relative ability - and thus provide an accurate and rational ranking system.The proposal takes account of the difference in both ranking and match score.For example, if two players of fairly equal ranking play each other and the score is 11 to 10 then their current relative ranking is confirmed and little needs to be done to adjust it. If, however, this occurred under the current rules and in the later rounds of a major tournament, the winner would receive a very significant increase in ranking points over the loser - even though their 'real' relative ability did not in any way justify such a disparity being introduced. On the other hand, if a player wins a match by a very slim margin over a very much lower ranked player, fairness - and a rational ranking system - should result in the current, and incorrect, relative rankings of the players being corrected. The question is, of course, "by how much" should ranking be adjusted to reflect a match score between two differently ranked players.

Fair Ranking System.

For now, suffice it to say that such systems are fairly easier developed (and a system has been developed by the author which, he believes, effectively and fairly ranks a population of players based on both performance (measured by the match score) and differences in ranking).

Proposal 3
No change is proposed to the current system whereby only winners advance to the next round and, ultimately, determine a tournament winner. However, instead of being eliminated, losers compete in a 'secondary' draw for both ranking points and prize money distribution.It is proposed that all players earn ranking points in respect of each match played at each round of a tournament based on performance and relative ranking. The round in which a match takes place is ignored. Winners advance to the next round - as occurs under existing rules. However, losers in each round play other losers from that round to determine both ranking points and prize money distribution. For example. the 16 losers in a first round of 32 players choose opponents from within the losing group and play one further round. Ranking points are assigned as for any regular match. The total prize money for the 16 losers is distributed according to the relative performance of each player taking into account the match score and relevant ranking of the players and their
opponents with higher prize money being awarded to the better performing players. In addition, up to and including the round of 16, the top ranked players (the top 1/8 of losers determined solely by matches played in the secondary draw) advance to the next round of the secondary draw and participate in the round of the secondary draw involving losers from the next round of the main draw.This proposal rectifies a number of major 'disadvantages' of the current system:
1 Currently, as the number of main draw matches decreases, the opportunities to watch tennis for a greater number of fans also decreases. Under the proposed system, secondary draw matches will continue in parallel with the main draw and provide more spectator opportunities.
2 Lower ranked players - expected to lose in the early rounds - will have more opportunity of exposure and match play. Currently, half of the entrants will play only one match in a tournament.
3 Losing players will have an opportunity of continuing to play and earn increased prize money and ranking points instead of being completely eliminated after a single, disappointing - and possibly unrepresentative - match.
4 Fans have a further opportunity of seeing losing players in whom they are interested - of particular value in the earlier rounds where, under the current system, there may be only one opportunity to see a favored player often at a time (on a normal workday) when many fans have difficulty attending. Players and fans therefore have 'second chances'.
5 Available facilities are better utilized, more fans can be accommodated and revenue opportunities are maximized. The greater revenue the tournament generates, the more value can be returned to the tournament.
6 Greater continuity of employment can be offered to officials and other event staff who are subject to being 'cut' at intermediate stages of a tournament as matches and spectators levels reduce.

Proposal 4
Qualifying events are abolished and direct entry according to ranking is established as the only method of determining qualification for a tournament

Proposal 5
Wild cards are abolished as a means of giving unwarranted preference to unworthy players over those that have demonstrated their ability and qualification for a place in a tournament. Proposals 4 and 5 are designed to abolish unfair preferences and, instead, allow a fair and rational ranking system to determine eligibility.

Summary and Operational Details

Apart from removing unfairness, these proposals are also designed to enhance interest and anticipation in the game and introduce additional elements of strategy and choice.Under the proposed system, tournament players will be faced with a choice prior to the first round - and at each succeeding round - of who they wish to play (it is proposed that they make up to 10 choices in order of preference. No preference would also be a valid option - and a default value if a player fails to submit choices by a cut-off time). A player will be faced with competing options and strategic choices in selecting an opponent.

They could select:
A player that they are confident of beating because of their lower ranking. This option will result in the player gaining the lowest ranking points from an expected performance - but will enhance their chances of progressing to the next round of the tournament.

A player that they feel that they will do particularly well against even though they are more closely or even more highly ranked. This option will earn them maximum ranking points. This may be considered by the player to be valuable for future tournament entry opportunities and more valuable than the greater chance of advancing to the next round of the current tournament than the selection of a lower ranked opponent may provide.

A player that they want to play because of their opponent's fame. Players may be tempted to gain experience or media attention by selecting a much better known player even though they do not rate their chances of success highly.

A player that they feel they can do particularly well against because of the player's style or 'head-to-head' history.

A player that they just want the opportunity to play!

A player that they wish to avoid playing because of a poor personal record or questions of confidence.

The process of balancing these conflicting factors will, it is believed, significantly enhance the sport for both players and fans. It will introduce an element of strategy that is currently absent as well as remove some inherent unfairness (and will even give commentators something new to discuss...)
Player choices will be evaluated using a 'goal-seeking' computer program that first looks for a solution that incorporates the most matches representing the most preferred choices of the players. It is believed that this will result in most - if not all - players being assigned to matches. If any unmatched players remain, the choices of the lowest ranked players are successively applied until exhausted. If there are any remaining unmatched players, they are then paired randomly (really randomly..)
The application of such a system would also have the effect of removing certain other difficulties associated with the professional circuit. The current system results in a player's ranking being reduced if they are not able to play due to injury or other reasons. Rankings do not, therefore, equal ability. Rankings under the proposed system will only reflect actual matches played - not missed. The current professional tour is acknowledged by most to be an extremely heavy and long schedule of tournaments. Any kind of normal home life is an impossibility for a pro tour player. Under the proposed system, a player's ranking is based only on actual match performance rather than the accumulation of points as a result of playing many tournaments.

2 Rule changes
The archaic system of tennis scoring has little relevance to the game. There is nothing inherent in the game of tennis that requires or is enhanced by its peculiarities. It's unfriendliness, illogical structure and language do, in fact, positively deter new players to the game as reflecting a jargon unknown to the uninitiated and an elitism that is out of step with the notion that tennis is for everyone.There is simply no reason to count 15-30-40-game than 1-2-3-game. But there also seems little rationale for a game to be determined by so few points - which provides little opportunity for a true test of consistent ability to be established. There is evidence that players are less inclined to be adventurous in their playing style because of the disproportionate value assigned to each point - with just 4 points needed to win a game. A game structure in which there is much more opportunity to make up for a loss of a point will, it is felt, result in more risks being taken and, consequently, more adventurous and exciting tennis.Similarly there is no merit to a system that treats a set of games won 6-0 by one player (where their opponent may not win a single point) as equal in every way to a set of games that is won 7-6(5) where just two points in over 60 points played actually separate the players. Such an illogical system uniquely allows a player to win a match having won less games and significantly less points than his opponent. A scoring system in which all games count equally - with a match being determined by the winner of a majority of games - provides a much more logical, fair and rational system. The dominance of TV as a medium by which the majority of fans experience professional tennis has brought its own set of unique difficulties to the game. The most serious is the scheduling of coverage of an event that could last anywhere from 30 minutes to 5+ hours. A scoring system that results in a more predictable time frame would assist TV scheduling and thereby increase the likelihood of tennis actually being included in TV scheduling. It would also reduce the likelihood of frustration to fans where coverage of a match is prematurely terminated due to expiration of allotted TV time. The following proposals provide a suggested solution to the problems discussed above:

Proposal 6
Scoring follows a simple numeric progression

Proposal 7
The winner of a game is the first to win 11 points

Proposal 8
The winner of a match is the first to win 11 games. Historically, the serve was a simple motion that put the ball into play and began a rally. In recent years, significant advances in racquet technology has resulted in the serve becoming a dominant factor - particularly in men's tennis - that was never envisaged when the sport was developed. This trend has progressed to a degree where the fundamental concept of tennis - the strategic variety of the rally - has become the exception rather than the rule in men's tennis. Many suggestions have been made to re-balance the components of the game and reduce the dominance of the serve - including reducing the ball pressure, increasing its size, reducing the size of the service box, raising the net, etc. etc. The author believes that there is a very simple solution:

Proposal 4
The serve shall be one attempt to put the ball into play. Failure to do so results in loss of the point by the server

A further rule change will also help to ensure that the serve does not dominate the game - as well as the point - and remove the inherent bias under the current rules that leads to the expectation that the server will win each game.It will also avoid games - and entire matches - being 'unfairly' decided. For example, it is a clear disadvantage for a server having to look directly into the sun while serving. Unless both players suffer the same disadvantage equally when serving, the result will be unfair. The current system is unfair. Let's assume that a set ends with the score at 6-3 and that Player A has been facing the sun for the last 2 games (since they changed ends at 4-3) and received serve during the last game. He will now play one game at the opposite end and serve. The players will now switch ends after the first game and Player A will return to the end facing the sun for a further 2 games, serving once. He has now played 4 games in the last 5 facing the sun. He has served twice into the sun. His opponent has not had to serve into the sun once in those 5 games. This imbalance can occur once again at the end of the next set to the disadvantage of the same player. Under the proposed changes, a complete range of playing characteristics - serving and receiving, facing the sun or wind, etc. - will be equally applicable to both players during a game and thus reduce unfair bias being introduced into the game result. The proposal is similar to current tie-break playing rules.

Proposal 5
The server of the first point in a game will be the receiver in respect of the 2nd and 3rd points. The server will thereafter alternate after every two points until the game is completed. The first serve will be from either side of the court at the option of the server. Subsequent sets of 2 serves will be from alternating sides of the court in the order determined by the server. Players will change ends without a break when one player reaches 6 points or there is a combined score of 11 points whichever occurs first.

Proposal 6
Players will change ends and take a 90 second break after each game. There seems little rationale to the current rule that a ball touching the net but continuing into the opponent's court is a valid stroke during a rally but an ineligible serve. The removal of the 'service let' rule seems to have been successfully applied to United States Men's Division 1 college tennis and should be applied generally - particularly as such a rule change will remove one more source of potential controversy between players.

Proposal 7
A serve that results in a ball touching the net but continuing into the opponent's service box is a valid serve and, if not returned, results in the loss of the point by the receiver. Recent years has also seen a disturbing tendency to 'use' medical time-outs at times that appear to be more linked to 'strategy' than injury. It is the author's view that a player should present himself at the court fully equipped and ready to play - both mentally and physically. There seems no justification for a player to receive the services a 'trainer' to massage a sore muscle or deliver an aspirin or drink additive, apply a bandaid to a blister. Current rules allow a player suffering from fatigue to escape a an opponent's onslaught on the court by taking a 'medical time-out' of 3 minutes (that is inevitably considerably longer due to the time-out not starting until the actual arrival of the trainer at the court and then the completion of a subsequent 'diagnosis period'). The player can then receive 3 minutes of massage which can be repeated throughout each subsequent changeover. Meanwhile his opponent must wait for the player to take his rest and 'treatment' entitlement before resuming play. That a player should have the opportunity of receiving such preferential 'treatment' to alleviate the natural consequences of either a lack of conditioning or pressure of his opponent's play seems quite illogical and leads to a further proposal.

Proposal 8
The services of a trainer shall not be available to a player during a match. A player unable to play within the time constraints of the game shall retire or be deemed to have retired if unwilling to do so. A player shall bring to the court all necessities that allow him to proceed with a match without interruption.

3. The government of tennis
Democracy is unknown in the regulation of tennis. In the United States, there are some 12 million 'members' of the USTA. They pay their annual fees but have no voice and no say in the way in which 'their' sport is organized. There are no elections. Officers are appointed by those already in power who are presumed to follow human nature by wishing to only see like-minded individuals join their ranks.The general perception appears to be that the regulation of tennis nationally and internationally follows its historical traditions of being by and for the benefit of an elite group of individuals who have no responsibility to either professional or amateur participants in the sport. They appear to act arbitrarily and exclude their membership from their deliberations and decision-making processes. This seems to permeate every level of the sport. For example, the author's local public tennis facility is unable to host a regular schedule of adult NTRP tournaments for local residents who want to play in tournaments at that popular, public tennis facility. The USTA has decided that preventing the facility doing so will result in players who wish to play competitively for ranking points being forced to travel to play in tournaments in more remote areas - that are unable to attract players - and thereby 'spread the revenue'. It is like a local city council mandating that a popular, local supermarket - which is popular because of its convenience and ability to provide what people want - may only open from 9am to noon so that shoppers will be forced to travel to less popular, more remote supermarkets - who are otherwise unable to attract customers - so as to keep as many businesses as possible (who pay taxes to the council) in operation. Applying such policies completely ignores and sacrifices the convenience and needs of the 'consumer' to the business interests of others with more influence in the USTA hierarchy.Similar artificial barriers are also erected to stifle competition to prevent 'unauthorized' events competing with those sanctioned by these 'representative' organizations in the professional tennis game. Monopolistic 'players associations' such as the ATP and WTA have evolved that appear no more representative of players than the USTA is representative of its members. By what democratic process did the ATP acquire its status? It announced its intention to "assume control of the game" in a parking lot at the US Open in 1988. It was headed by, what else, a political insider who was a former Jimmy Carter chief of staff.

Proposals to remedy this situation are as fundamental to the evolution of the game as those discussed above. Tennis should be recognized as a truly international sport - even at its lowest levels. Typical 'futures' events in the USA feature players representing a very wide range of countries. In a recent event, players from 33 countries played in the qualifying round. The ITF's authority should be strengthened to recognize this fact and national tennis associations should not be permitted to adopt their own, contrary rules. However, neither the ITF nor any national association should be allowed to limit free competition. Broadly, the proposals are:

Proposal 9
The ITF (International Tennis Federation) will be a technical, rule-making and administrative body composed of representatives of all national tennis associations whose officers have been elected by their memberships. Unrepresentative associations shall have no representation within the ITF. It's officers and board of directors shall be elected from these representatives ad not appointed. The ITF will have no sanctioning role with respect to when or where tournaments may be held. Its international governing functions shall be limited to the determination of the rules of play which shall apply to every competitive tennis match; the standard training and development of tennis officials and the development, publication and administration of a ranking system applicable to every competitive tennis match - whether amateur or professional - wherever played, and the maintenance of a publicly accessible (Internet based) database of rankings and match results organized by locality, area and nation. Any competitive tournament may submit match results for inclusion in local, area, national and international rankings. The ITF's rule-making and ranking functions shall apply internationally and no national tennis association may adopt alternative or contradictory rules.

Proposal 10
National Tennis Associations will be governed by officials proposed and elected by its whole membership and may operate for the benefit of its members to the extent that they are mandated to do so by a vote of the membership. National tennis associations may organize their own events.

Proposal 11
No national or international governing body may regulate the professional or amateur sport of tennis so as to restrict the ability of any person or entity to host a tennis event in which players may freely compete for ranking points and prize money.

Proposal 12
Where the number of applicants to enter a tournament exceeds the available places, entry will be determined solely by rank as determined by reference to the current ITF player database. The purpose of these proposals is to remove restrictive practices and deregulate tennis to provide an environment wherein players have an opportunity to freely compete and establish their ranking and eligibility. If an organized tournament is oversubscribed, there should be no reason why a local satellite tournament should not be able to immediately provide an opportunity for unsuccessful applicants to play an alternative, competitive tournament. Wherever a currently ranked player participates in any match, it is possible to rank his opponent as a result of the match score. Universal rankings can, therefore, be established - and any player have an opportunity to be continuously ranked. For example, Prize Money Tennis (http://www.prizemoneytennis.com) is currently hosting a series of tournaments in South Florida in which currently ranked ATP players participate. These tournaments/matches are not sanctioned by the ATP or USTA and players who compete do not earn ranking points no matter what their performance. They play for prize money and the opportunity to play competitive tennis. They do not have the opportunity to gain entry qualifications into sanctioned tournaments even though they may demonstrate their ability by their performance against ranked players. It is unfair that he USTA - or any other body that claims to represent the interests of players - should restrict the number and locations of tournaments with the known and deliberate result that large numbers of layers who wish to participate in competitive tennis are denied the opportunity to do so. The fact that over 80 players were turned away from the latest USA 'futures' event and the popularity of events such as the Prize Money Tennis events at Boca Raton, Florida - which attracted 150 player registrations to its latest tournament - demonstrates that there are large numbers of aspiring tournament players with no opportunity to compete in the limited 'sanctioned' events under the restrictive practices of current governing bodies. Such practices should no be permitted to continue to limit opportunities to freely play and compete.With almost every tournament at the lowest level of the professional sport - the 'futures' event - being oversubscribed, there is little or no opportunity for a new player without any ranking to establish a ranking and 'become a professional player'. Anyone prepared to organize a tournament and able to attract players should be allowed to do so at any level of the game without the erection of artificial barriers to prevent this occurring. Any competitive match played in any tournament should be recognized for ranking purposes.

There a no major administrative reasons why such a system should not operate successfully. For example, a standard score card could be completed at the end of each match and signed by each player (such a system is universally and successfully used in all golf tournaments). The score card can then be submitted to, and validated by, the tournament director (properly authorized and identified and then issued with simple credentials by the ITF) and submitted by him (via a simple direct-entry internet form) to the ITF to be incorporated into the ranking database.

Put simply, the removal of the sanctioning process - and restrictions on tournaments being organized and available to players - will allow opportunities for competitive play to match the demand from players who wish to compete. Only by providing such a free environment can fair opportunities be provided to aspiring players.

4. A Fair Ranking System
Fundamental to these proposals is the ability of a system to fairly rank a large population of players. Both intuition and experience tells us that a tennis player can be ranked according to his ability. A player's relative ability can be determined fairly precisely as a result of his performance against others. When we watch two players in a match, we make an assessment of "who is the stronger player" and how much stronger one is than the other. As players, we also rank our opponents according to how easily we won or how badly we lost. We can fairly accurately classify our opponents. Once a descriptive hierarchy of ability is produced that reflects this personal assessment, a player's rank can be described by reference to his performance compared to the ranking scale. As long as everyone is using the same reference scale, it is possible to establish the ranking of any and every player.

Such rankings are currently produced and used to separate participants in adult amateur tournaments. In the United States, the NTRP system ranks players according to their ability and assigns them to a minimum level at which they can play in a sanctioned tournament. There are a number of ranking systems in use. Leaving aside the absurd 'system' of assigning points and ranking players according to the number of tournaments played (currently in use by the USTA) the weakness of practically all current ranking systems lies predominantly in the fact that they take no account of match score and only wins or losses. As discussed above, a measure of a player's ability that is limited to 'did you win or lose' is no more accurate than a question of, "Do you speak French" which has to be entered either 'yes' or 'no'. A response of 'yes' could mean that the person asked knows a few words or that he is fluent.

Clearly a player who is beaten 6-0 6-0 by another is a weaker player than his opponent. A player beaten 6-4 7-6 may not be. Under the current system (discussed above), which player served first and where the sun was in the sky could have determined who won and who lost in such a close match. But, in general terms - and assuming bias is removed from the manner in which games are determined - if one player wins 5 games and another 10 games in a 15 game match, the proportions of 10:15 and 5:15 are a reliable and usable measure of the relative ability of the players to win games against their current opponent.

While difference in ability between two players is easily measured, more complex technique are required to reflect that difference in a universal ranking system and comparisons of history and performance of the whole population of players are required. The author has developed a simple system that appears to accurately rank players as a result of matches played but recognizes that further analysis is required to produce an acceptable and validated system. The ITF should recognize the need for such a system and bring together the combined prowess of researchers to develop a workable, validated and accepted solution. Fortunately, the proliferation of low-cost computers that bring them within the reach of practically every family - and certainly to the ITF - means that much more sophisticated, logical and rational solutions can now be applied to player ranking than was possible when the current rules were determined.It is time we recognized our ability to be fair and apply the technology that we now possess to design and implement a system that ranks players fairly and accurately. With such a system in place, there is no further handicap to the establishment of fair treatment of players and the establishment of a free system of tennis competition that will to the benefit of participants, spectators and the game of tennis.

Следующая статья | Предыдущая статья | Все статьи
Обсудить на форуме