Tennis Strike: Fine Line Hard To Reach, Tour Can Do Its Part

To a certain extent, I don't blame the players for forming a union to strike, due to the demands of the game. Tennis today is probably far more physically demanding than at any time, and it doesn't take a lot of tennis to be too much tennis for the players.

But there are some major challenges in this issue.

One of them is: how can the players play in a schedule that meets their needs, as well as the needs of the business? Each side understands the other to an extent. But understandably, they will focus on their own side most.

The other challenge is: Where is the fine line between too much tennis and too little tennis? A player can go into a Grand Slam having played too much, and may lose early due to simply being worn out. Another player can come into a Slam having played too little, and will be rusty in the early rounds. Again, where is that "perfect" preparation, and can a player strike really get the fine line the players want?

It is difficult, because today, even one tournament win can take a lot out of a player. Tennis is tremendously physical, no  matter what the schedule is, or will become. A warm-up to a Slam can be very positive for a player, but then once playing in the Slam, a couple of long five-setters can do a player in.

Conversely, having less tournaments in the calendar can be an issue, too. If there are fewer warm-ups to a Slam, what happens if a top player loses early in one of them, and there's no more warm-ups left? No wear and tear, but there is very little tournament practice going into a Slam, also.

While there is no doubt that the optimum "fine line" desired by the players will be difficult, there are a few things the Tour can do to improve its scheduling. Absolutely, I know this is much, much easier said than done. But it is so that players can have the best opportunity to be at their freshest, and play the best tennis in front of paying, tennis loving fans.

One thing that really stands out is the US Open having the semis and finals on back to back days. From the player's standpoint, there's no good reason for this. Yes, I know, due to rain, the U.S. Open finally agreed to have the semis on Saturday and the final on Monday. But it would really benefit players (and therefore fans who will see the players fresher) to continue the trend of semis and finals on alternate days.

It would behoove the US Open to have a roof. There should be more than one, like in the Australian Open. But have at least one. To save money, they can build the roof at one of the smaller main courts. That way, (as in Wimbledon and the Australian Open) there will always be tennis. More players can get more rest. Fans can see better tennis without players limping to the baseline, or the finish line.

The French Open could use some lights. Other clay court tournaments have them. Again, from the players standpoint, there's really nothing good about a match suspended due to bad lighting.

I know that this recommendation is much more difficult, but I think the Australian Open should not be played in such peak summer heat the way it is,and right after the Holiday season. It should be moved a little closer to the Australian fall, so that players have had more chances to practice, and it's not as hot.

Secondly, the French and Wimbledon are too close together. There's no break between the exhausting clay season and the beginning of Wimbledon. In just a few weeks, a player has to adjust to a new surface.

The Davis Cup is in dire need of re-structuring. Perhaps, this could be a two or three week event, where there are no other tournaments on the calendar. In other words, the tennis world can be dedicated to the Davis Cup, and this only. I think it would be very exciting for fans to have this format. Having it right after the US Open—and in other situations where it feels as though it is interfering—is just not beneficial to the players.

Lastly, if anything needs to be reduced, it's the fall season. It's after the US Open. When the US Open is done, the players are thinking of how their year WAS. Not IS, but WAS.

The year-end Championship should be soon after the US Open. There's really no reason to have to establish a year-end top eight for several months after the US Open. They've already proven themselves in the biggest tournaments, so why drag this on into the fall? Having a reduced fall schedule will rejuvenate the players for the next year.

As mentioned before, establishing the right schedule for the players will be a challenge no matter which way we slice it. Tennis is a very physically demanding sport, even after one or two tournament wins. But I strongly feel that the tour can do its part, and I hope that it will. After that, it has to be up to the players to figure out what works best for them.

I hope for another wonderful, thrilling year in 2012.