Gaudenzi seized the opportunity: top players like Sinner and Alcaraz would advance to the third round, but without earning points from the previous rounds. A new solution that everyone agrees on.
What if the top players could reduce the new Masters 1000 to six to eight days? This could happen if instead of just one bye they were granted two. Obviously, to respect fair play with the other players who would be battling from the first round, it would be necessary not to attribute the ATP points usually awarded to those who pass the first two rounds. So it would be up to the top player to opt for one solution or the other. Do you want to come later? He does not earn points, nor does he earn the prize money. If he chooses to arrive at the start of the tournament and stays 12 days like everyone else, he will also earn prize money and points.
This problem was posed to Andrea Gaudenzi by director Scanagatta. To the question: “Why don’t you think about giving two byes to the top, so they would get into the third round and could get to the tournament later?“, the ATP president surprisingly replied that this question is under discussion in the ATP.
The problem of the “new 1000”
The 12-day Masters 1000 are now an integral part of the ATP tour. Seven on 9 of the Masters 1000 have this format, with a bye in the first round for the 32 seeded players. The show in the initial rounds suffers, and especially the top players, who reach the end, are not happy with the absence of a rest between one tournament and another, nor with the fatigue of spending 12 days (however working) away from home. A long-standing issue, which has often been discussed without finding a real solution..
But it seems that the ATP is considering various hypotheses to improve the show and please both second-tier players and top players. A decision such introducing two byes two rather than one, would obviously involve adjustments, without giving points and prize money for the previous rounds to those who enter directly into an advanced phase, shaping the draw so that such a solution can then be compatible with the regular course of a tournament.
“It would be an option,” Scanagatta commented, “those who want to come first could earn points and prizes in any case, those who arrive later, so as to be free to carry out any other activities such as exhibitions or commitments with sponsors, would give it up.” Andrea Gaudenzi, a manager who is not reluctant to introduce changes, seized the opportunity: in fact, he did not deny or ignore the question, but underlined how the ATP is also thinking of such a solution to settle the complaints and quell the controversy over the 1000 for 12 days.
Knowing how to change
Change is often a good thing, even if it were to come to change the rules of tennis. In the past, Gaudenzi, a former tennis player of excellent level, had highlighted how the Next Gen Finals model (one serve, best-of-4 game set) was more intriguing because it reduced downtime in the game. This is another question which was raised in the Turin morning by Scanagatta, who obviously asked if work was also being done in this direction. The response of the ATP president, in this case, was more broad-minded: although there is a need to reduce downtime in some phases of the set, is has to be carefully pondered whether such drastic changes would be appreciated by tennis fans and public. And, as long as this system is liked and has worked (as it always has), it is difficult to change it.
