There is no doubt that we are witnessing a ‘golden era’ in elite men’s tennis at the moment. The recent Australian Open final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal was a triumph of skill, determination and athleticism which must surely rank as one of the greatest tennis matches of all time.
One memorable moment for me was when Djokovic collapsed to the floor after losing a punishing 31-stroke ralley. It made me think about how much more physically-demanding the game is nowadays compared to even just a few years ago.
We are lucky as tennis fans to be living through this exceptional era. The ‘big four’ – Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray – are head and shoulders above any other players out there right now. You could argue Murray is still some way short of matching the other three but he is still some 2,500 ranking points clear of fifth seed David Ferrer.
But is there a danger that these great players, and everyone else at the top of men’s tennis, are suffering from an over-crowding of the tennis schedule? The ATP World Tour rules stipulate that players must participate in at least 12 events in addition to the four grand slams. Also, players are often inclined to take part in lesser events to accustom themselves to a change of surface before a major tournament, such as Queen’s before Wimbledon, for example.
When added up, it means many players are forced into playing at least 20 tournaments a year, with a break of just one month at the end of the season. Compare this to footballers and rugby players, and factor in their respective incomes, and it becomes clear tennis players get a rough deal. The problem isn’t so severe for the women’s players, however, as they get a more generous two-month rest.
Recently, the situation has spurred many players to take action. The last few months of 2011 saw several high-profile players including Murray, Roddick and Nadal insist that there should be fewer tournaments during the season with a more prolonged break to allow the players to recover. As Murray admitted back in September, ‘We work hard but don’t get much break.’ By the end of the season, many players are tiring and injury-prone; the most recent US Open saw a record 14 retirements in just the first six days.
You could argue that these guys are a bunch of wusses and need to read the history books; John McEnroe played 86 matches in 1984 and never complained, for example. In addition, rehabilitation and accommodation facilities are have advanced hugely since McEnroe’s time, while a few years back the ATP introduced best-of-three set finals for Masters 1000 events.
But Nadal, labelling the schedule as ‘crazy’ for the modern era, says this fails to compensate for other developments in the sport. Serves and groundstrokes have become faster as players have become bigger and stronger, not to mention the new racquet string technology. Also, courts have become noticeably slower forcing more gruelling rallies, while demands from sponsors are pushing players further than ever.
The ‘big four’ have filled all the semi-final positions in the last three grand slams and only six out of the last 21 grand slam finals have seen appearances from other players. In short, this current form as well as their fan base and commercial success means they should have considerable influence in tennis politics. If they wanted to force a change in the schedule, surely they would get it?
Well, probably not – for two reasons. For starters, the players do not appear to be united in their criticism of the schedule; Roger Federer has said he is happy with the current programme, announcing in December: ‘I think the biggest challenge for the top players is managing our own schedules and not overplaying. This is key to health and long-term success.’
And the evidence seems to show Federer is managing his schedule a whole lot better than his rivals. The Swiss coped with 76 matches in 2011 despite reaching the age of 30 – technically past his physical peak and, incredibly, has never retired in almost 1,000 career matches.
By contrast, Murray mismanaged his schedule last season, playing in several of the autumn Far East tournaments to win ranking points and make up for a disappointing season, whilst Federer and others took a break. True, Murray may have won a few of them, but the strain on his body told when he had to pull out of the lucrative ATP World Tour Finals in London in November.
And even if the players are united in their criticism, past experiences point towards a very slow response from the ATP. Talk of schedule overcrowding has existed for at least two decades now, and in the last seven years only one playing week has been removed from the schedule. As Murray has admitted, the current crop of players will not see any significant changes during their careers with such a sluggish attitude from the authorities.
It would be a tragedy if any of the men’s elite players had their careers cut short by over- playing, but I’m not convinced that wholesale schedule changes are necessarily the way forward. As Federer has demonstrated, it seems as though having a ‘break timetable’ is the wisest thing to do and if that means missing one or two tournaments, so be it.
But it would also make sense if the ATP tweaked a couple of things here and there in recognition that the game has changed. This might include introducing a slightly longer off- season or maybe giving the top ten players benefits such as more tournament byes or opt- out powers. It would also help if the ATP was more responsive to players generally.
These compromise measures seem the most likely course of action for everyone involved, and I would eat my hat if a players’ strike happened any time soon.
Great article Jack.