Grand Slams - do they need to operate consistent policies regarding schedules/scoring?

[Sallydaisy]

The top 4 events of the tennis Calendar - all operating as Grand Slams. Yet each one has a different approach to their schedules, scoring (best of 3 or 5 sets/use of CTB's) and in other areas.

Is it time the players, and the ITF who control the Grand Slams, did something about it?
It seems to become more confusing each year as each Slam tries to install a 'difference' to their own event.

To my mind Wimbledon still sets the best example on many fronts.
It celebrates the defending champion (ladies and men) by giving them the opening spot on the first 2 days and despite the very British weather manages to complete within 14 days including playing R1 Singles over just 2 days. But it clings on to 5 set matches for Mens Singles and Doubles and has a very dodgy policy regarding whether or not the roof is used to allow 'night' matches.

The AO and Roland Garros also allow 2 days for R1 and both allot 'prime' slots in the first 2 days for their defending Champions although not necessarily the first match.

Why, given the same vagaries of weather, does the USO need 3 days to complete R1? Ithink htey have 1 court less than Wimbledon BUT they have many more floodlit courts and facilities for night matches which Wimbledon doesn't have.

Wimbledon still insists on best of 5 sets for ALL mens events unless they get behind schedule because of rain and then they shorten Mens Doubles to best of 3. And they don't allow a tie-break to decide the 5th set. USO Mens Doubles is best of 3 full sets, I think the AO has best of 3 tie-break sets, I've lost track of what Roland Garros does ...

And that's the main point - none of them operate the same policies on fundamental areas of the Grand Slam events. I think it comes across as an unprofessional approach to running these top level tournaments and I wish someone would sort it out!!!

Would it be better if they all operated in the same way?

[RoastLamb]

Each event is unique and individual and I don't have a problem with the way they all operate - for the most part. I like how Wimbledon does it the best (but then I'm totally biased). I like the best of five sets and no tiebreak for men's singles and doubles. Not a huge fan of the tiebreak in men's singles for the other 3 BUT I understand why they do it. The only thing I really hate is the Saturday men's semi-final for the men at the USO but I believe they've now changed that. In the US tv rights rules and I find that sad.

[Sallydaisy]

The only thing I really hate is the Saturday men's semi-final for the men at the USO but I believe they've now changed that. In the US tv rights rules and I find that sad.
They seem to have changed it by adding on a 3rd Monday for an afternoon Mens Final - which in itself I find baffling since that cannot really be considered prime TV time anywhere in the world!!!

Mostly what I found unfair, to the players, was the lack of a day's rest for at least one player between the Semi and the Final and that's not just at the USO. There surely could be better ways around it than adding a 15th day at the end, maybe starting R1 on Sunday as an option?
Wimbledon operates over 13 days and usually gets the job done on time!

I guess some 'differential' is good to give each Slam a unique quality e.g. having 'middle' Sunday off at Wimbledon (due to local bye-laws) but there's room for improvement all round IMHO.

[RoastLamb]

Totally agree, there MUST be at least one day of rest for BOTH players before the final.

[hfwardhouse]

I find it baffling that they're not all the same tbh - I think Wimbledon's is the best - although I do quite like the middle Sunday not being a rest day at the other slams - no withdrawal! I think each slam is very different anyway that if the scoring at least was the same for them all it'd make life a bit easier! I do think that the champion should certainly play on the first or 2nd day - preferably like Wimbledon does, opening the tournament.

[david1610]

I think a distinction has to be made between the matches and their scheduling.
Winning a slam for a male player is in my mind associated with coming through a series of best of five set matches. I feel uncomfortable that doubles players may play only best of three. That certainly should be standardised. On a global level.
TBs in fifth sets - not sure if that needs to be standardised - trickier - I can see arguments both ways.
Scheduling, for good or bad, has local issues to take into consideration and not sure it can (even if there is an argument it should) be standardised.
To sum up, the sporting act should be uniform but local considerations have to enter into the scheduling IMHO. For good or bad.

But that does not mean that common sense has be jettisoned!

[Jan]

I love the way that Wimbledon does things - maybe because I like tradition. Having the defending champ open the proceedings is great.
I think the men's doubles should be best of five sets (unless circumstances prevail, like major rain delays).
I really don't like a TB in the final set of a match.
And I hope they NEVER bring in the sudden-death deuce and MTB in the slams! (I don't think any of them have it, do they??)

[Jan62]

I think they should all allow the champions to be the first match - seems like only common courtesy - but can see that for tv rights then local scheduling might prefer that the champion should be the featured match and that might therefore mean an evening match. So maybe the compromise should be that the champions always play on Day 1, but the scheduling of their matches is up to local decision.

USO taking 3 days for R1 is just ridiculous IMHO, its high time they came into line with the other 3 GS on that. I agree that mens singles and dubs should be 5 sets - its what makes the Slam titles a harder test. I personally don't like the idea of tie breaks in the 5th set, but can see the arguments on both sides.

I think each of the GS tournaments does have something unique about it anyway, just in the way its organised on the ground and the atmosphere. Night matches at USO and AO always seem to have their own special atmosphere, Wimbly centre court under the roof and lights brings something different, the horrible red dirt stuff in FO makes it stand out. I'm not a huge fan of the stuffiness (some call it tradition) of Wimbledon but its just my revolutionary tendencies that come out, I still absolutely love it as a spectacle. So if they standardised that R1 was played over 2 days, and sorted out whether its 3 or 5 sets and CTB or not, then there's probably still lots to keep them all feeling special! :)

[supergran]

Each GS is unique in its own way. I have always loved Wimbledon and its traditions having watched it from my early teenage years. Before that we would listen to coverage on the radio. Went to Wimbledon three times in the 80s, queued twice and an organised visit on Finals weekend once. One year 2009, desperate to see Andy live booked a Hospitality package for last 16 and watched Andy in that famous match under the roof. Since then have been twice:Watched Andy lose to Federer from the hill and this year watched him in the quarters on the hill again. I love the organisation, the stewards are so friendly and helpful but dislike the way that one can obtain tickets ie having to queue, win in the ballot or pay extraordinary amounts of money to get on Centre. Still, as that is way it has been done for years can't see it changing. We have been to the US Open once, in 2010 and what I love about this tournament is how egalitarian it is. If you have the money you can buy a ticket. I ordered ground passes for two days in the first week. We met Judy on Tuesday morning and funnily enough she told me Andy was not playing until Wednesday and his team were not too pleased. Later she texted me with the time and court. Second match on Ashe so all I had to do was visit the ticket office and buy tickets for Wednesday. It seemed so simple. Obviously not sure if it would be as easy later on. That said, and we did enjoy the experience of the US Open, agree with everyone who says that taking three days is just not on and to not recognise the reigning champion is a bit shabby in my opinion. Have never visited RG or the Oz Open so can't comment on tickets but obviously they get the first rounds done in two days. So while appreciating the differences I definitely think that the scheduling at Flushing Meadows leaves a lot to be desired. Champions should play on first day...it makes sense and highlights the achievement of the winners. Playing the last match on the third day was disgusting. Whether they will ever be consistent is something we don't know. I do go with 5 sets for doubles and no TB. The players have some power so perhaps they should flex their muscles and bring about the changes that would improve the sport for them and their fans.