Debate on Tour Calendar
Masks Real Problems

Matt Cronin

Is the tour schedule the real problem?

The constant complaining by top players about the length and physical demands of the season defies logic. Virtually every top player, man and woman, now currently plays more than the required minimum events, even including the Williams sisters.

But beyond the calendar itself there are a whole range of issues that must be considered in any logical discussion of tour injuries. These include the significant differences between the ATP and WTA tours and the differences between the elite, marquee players and the majority of other professionals.

Injuries

While there is no question that pro tennis sustains too many significant injuries to its top players, the schedule cannot be solely blamed for the occurrence, not when every player has been competing and practicing week in and week out since they were children on a variety of surfaces, and learned to play in literally hundreds of different conditions and environments.

The real issue may be total court time - including the amount and type of practice - and how that affects the individual player. No respectable trainer will tell you that every player shares the same body type, so there really is no one perfect recipe for how many hours a player should be spending on court, in the gym, what type of strokes best fits their shoulders, or what type of movements work best with their knees, ankles and hips.

Why are some players injured, while others who play more are not?

Why is it, for example, that at the age of 28, that 16-time Grand Slam winner Roger Federer has never had a debilitating injury, while one his primary rivals who around the same age, Argentine David Nalbandian, can't keep off the surgeon's table?

Is there really a reason why the hard-charging Rafael Nadal now has chronic knee tendinitis at the age of the 23, while his fellow Spaniard, Nicolas Almagro, who plays a similar style, is nearly the same age and also grew up on clay, has been relatively healthy? Then again have you ever seen the way Rafa practices? But look no further than Nikolay Davydenko if you want proof that it is possible to play a very high number of events in both singles and doubles and remain unscathed.

The same point applies on the women's tour, where perennial top-5 player Elena Dementieva only sustained her first major injury two years ago and it was a fluke, having her rib broken by a trainer during the off season. Meanwhile her long time peer, Venus Williams, appears to have sustained every major injury possible despite playing a much reduced schedule.

The preponderance of full time traveling "physios" amongst the top players does mean that the stars are taking their long term health seriously, and there's no question that having an expert working day in and day out to keep his or her player out of the doctor's office will lengthen some players careers.

Trainers like Doug Spreen (left) travel full time now, the same as coaches like Larry Stefanki (right).

But again, there's no magic pill. Andy Roddick hired Pete Sampras' former full time trainer, Doug Spreen when Pete retired back in 2002. But despite working his tail off to loss weight and keep in shape, Roddick has been unable to play a consistent schedule, suffering a major knee injury last fall, and then recently at the Australian Open, a nerve injury to his right arm. Andy Murray, whose rise to the top five coincided with his commitment to getting stronger and faster, also has had his fair share of ailments and he's only 22.

All one has to do is go through the ranks of the top juniors and look at how many of them are sustaining significant injuries to realize that some of them are spending too many hours on court, and very possibly, not enough time building themselves up physically to sustain long and fruitful careers.

Should the players, and/or their parents and their coaches be held responsible partially responsible rather than blaming the tours? Whatever the reasons for the injury problems, the fact is that many players continue to complain about the pro schedules. This is even after their commitments have been reduced.

What is the meaning of increasing injuries in junior tennis?

Elite Players

But the long and short of it is this: the only players who should have any reason to complain about the length of the year are those at the top. This is because they are the only ones consistently going deep enough in the draws to warrant it. The top players are also the only players who are obligated to play the ATP 1000s or WTA Premier events. Finally, they are in high demand for smaller tournaments, as well as for the Davis and Fed Cups.

Remember in any event fully half the players play only one match, losing in the first round. A player ranked No. 80 isn't winning often enough to be able to say that he or she is being forced into grinding week after week, not when he or she is usually losing in early rounds and has the rest of the week to rest and travel to another tournament. The fact is, the less well known competitors actually need to play more not less, as it's the only way they can make a decent living.

The Williams sisters both play more than the minimums required by the WTA.

So the focus of the discussion should be on the top players. The question then becomes are the ITF and both tours demanding too much out of them? And how much are the top players actually playing in relation to these demands? On the WTA side, the season now ends on October, giving almost all the players (except those who qualify for the season ending championships) a full nine weeks off, and this doesn't include the periodic breaks after the spring hardcourt season, Wimbledon and the US Open.

There are only eight mandatory WTA tournaments (the four Slams plus Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Beijing). The players then chose to play four of five other lower Premier and two $700,000 events for a total of 15 committed tournaments in their ranking.

That's the requirement, but what do the players actually do? Instead of taking a breather, last year world No. 3 Caroline Wozniacki competed in 25 tournaments over the past year, 10 more than the minimum. No. 12 Flavia Pennetta did her one better at playing 26.

Even the Williams sisters, who are frequently criticized for not playing enough, have 17 and 18 tournaments on the books respectively. So even they are over the actual minimum. Both sisters have stated in the past that the season is too long, but still have found reasons to play more than required.

Caroline Wozniacki played 26 tournaments in 2009.

The Men's Tour

The issues on the men's side are different. The men who finished in the top-30 the year prior not only have to play the four Slams, but in nine other 1000 tournaments (and if a player makes the ATP World Final that's one more.) Plus they are required to play four ATP World Tour 500s. That's 17required tournaments and 18 if they make the Final. The other major difference is that the ATP Finals don't end until nearly December and the Davis Cup final is week later. Participation in the small ATP World Tour 250s isn't mandatory, but most will play one if not two to insure that the have enough events in their "Best-18" ranking. The fact is that the vast majority of the top 20 played more than 18 tournaments, with top 10ers like Nikolay Davydenko and Robin Soderling registering 26 tournaments each. Only four men in the top 20 Federer, Nadal, Murray and Fernando Gonzalez, had less than 20 tournaments on the board, and those four all played a minimum of 18.

Given that it's not mandatory for them to play more than 18 tournaments, any players who say that they are being forced to put their bodies through a meat grinder are fibbing to themselves and their fans. Moreover, what is too often ignored is that even in off season, plenty of players are playing exhibitions, whether it's for charity or extra cash. Why not take the much-desired time off then?

To come to the players' defense a bit, there are important issues that are largely ignored. First almost every player of note is pressured to play Davis or Fed Cup, which can add up to another month of training and playing to their year and can be emotionally taxing.

Soderling and Davydenko: top 10 players who played 26 tournaments.

This is why, for example, that Andy Roddick isn't playing Davis Cup for the U.S. this year for the first time in many years. It's one of the reasons that Serena Williams has almost never played Fed Cup.

There is also a different kind of pressure on players to compete in home country tour events. Players can find this very hard to resist, which is why Roddick and James Blake have played so many US Open Series tournaments, and why Serena is in such large demand in places like Stanford, L.A. and Charleston.

The Swiss Federer annually competes in Basel even though he doesn't have to. Nadal plays Barcelona even though it's sandwiched in between mandatories in Rome and Madrid. And No. 2 Novak Djokovic of Serbia, not only plays the small new event in Belgrade, but is the tournament director!

Davis and Fed Cup can lengthen the season by a month for top players.

Unfortunately, the rule books, especially the WTA's, don't take into account how important is it for the popularity of the sport as a whole for national heroes to show up at their country's events. Somewhat understandably, the tours are more concerned about making sure that their top stars play in their biggest and most heavily marketed sponsors' events, regardless of their location.

It's no secret that many of the top Americans and Europeans don't want to travel to Asia after the US Open and then have to go back to Europe for the year-end tournaments, or that many of the Europeans think that spending the month of March in the U.S. for Indian Wells and Miami is too long, or that many Americans don't cherish the spring clay court trip to Italy, Spain and France.

The tours' focus has been on streamlining the calendar so that the best have chance to compete against the best at least 10 times a year. But the consequence of that move is the reduction in the number of tournaments, which means that fewer folks get to see live tennis, which most would argue is a far more attractive brand than the game on television.

My view is that at this point in time, when both tours are trying to expand into Asia, there is absolutely no reason to cut the number of tournaments on the calendar, especially with so many major cities in traditional markets crying out for a tournament they can call their own.

The super tie-breaker has added excitement to the doubles tour.

Other than the players simply taking their careers into their own hands and reducing the amount of tournaments that they play or their practice, there are two other possible solutions to the over-playing crisis. The first is increased the byes for the top players, so that at smaller events they advance directly into the quarterfinals. A more radical idea is to introduce the Super Tiebreaker at all tour singles events until the semifinals, which would cut hours off of playing time. That may seem extreme, but it has breathed life into tour doubles matches and made then much more dramatic and entertaining.

While in my mind there's nothing better than a well-played and dramatic five-setter, perhaps if the number of on-court hours were reduced, the world wouldn't have had to sit glumly through a Maria Sharapova-less Aussie Open or Rafael Nadal-less Wimbledon.

It's worth taking a look at these and/or additional suggestions, but the calendar and total number of tournaments required doesn't tell the whole story of the long term effects of time on the court for the careers of professional players.