Schedule woes to be addressed with ATP power shift? More mail

While thinking we should retire the question, "Are you going to retire?"...

I'm a lifelong tennis player and fan, and even though I consider myself knowledgeable about the game, I don't understand all of the angst about the offseason. I know players must enter a certain amount of tournaments, but if they really want three months off at the end of the year, can't they just fill their "quota" from January-September then take October-December off? Also, did anyone else notice the irony of Andy Roddick calling for a players' union from the site of an EXHIBITION he played? If he's that exhausted from the tennis calendar, then either don't play exos or don't complain about the calendar!
-- Scott, Jacksonville, Fla.

• I can't tell you how many readers start questions with this sentiment: "I consider myself a devoted fan but I don't understand the ..." That, in itself, is problematic.

Top players are required to compete in various events throughout the season. It's not about hitting a quota; it's about hitting specific tournaments. The ATP rulebook states the top 30 in the rankings must play at least eight of nine Masters 1000 events. So Roger Federer, for instance, can't simply pack it up after the U.S. Open even if he's played every week prior. Body willing, he must also play in China, Paris and the ATP event in London.

A few of you have asked about the irony of players bemoaning the length of the season while "competing" in an exhibition. I agree that "the optics aren't good," as they say in political consulting. But, really, I don't think there's much hypocrisy. Exhibitions are good fun, a chance for players to perform in under-served markets and, yes, earn some freelance income. But it hardly qualifies as competition. These are basically practice sets, with no one going at full speed. There's a big difference in intensity and required exertion between an ATP match/tournament and a Tuesday exhibition in Omaha or Macau or wherever.

My pet theory, based entirely on anecdote and observation and not data: Part of the injury and illness epidemic in tennis owes not to exertion on the court, but the logistics of the Tours. Players are competing all over the globe. They're eating at odd hours. There are rain delays and scheduling quirks and erratic start times (see U.S. Open, 2011) and the inconveniences of travel. As anyone who travels often for business knows, your immune system -- and, by extension, your body -- isn't at its best when you're jet-lagged and sleeping in hotels and scarfing down 2 a.m. room service and changing climates and altitude each week. And no amount of courtesy cars and Nobu meals and on-site massages cures that.

We hear all the time about players in the '70s and '80s who competed year-round -- often entering in doubles and singles draw -- and stayed healthy. Since then, the nature of the sport has changed, athleticism has improved, racket and string technology have encouraged players to take bigger cuts, etc. But I also contend that playing in Hilton Head one week and Atlanta the next and Boca the week after that is a lot easier on the body than, say, the New York-Serbia-Bangkok-Beijing leg that Novak Djokovic could have played in the span of three weeks.

This week Andy Roddick spoke again about the possibility of a players' union. Those of us long enough in the tooth to remember when Saved by the Bell was Good Morning, Miss Bliss may recall Wayne Ferreira's 2003 effort to organize players into a more unified body. I haven't heard of the International Men's Tennis Association (IMTA) since, so I'm guessing Wayne's efforts never materialized. Additionally, I remember many players expressing lukewarm support for the idea, except for Lleyton Hewitt (who had a blood feud/pending lawsuit with the ATP during this time). Do you think the players will be more successful in forming a union this time around?
-- Will Evans, San Diego

• We try to keep the ground rules to a minimum here, but anyone referencing Good Morning, Miss Bliss gets special dispensation. (Set in Indiana, I'll have you know.) The IMTA was not successful, mostly because the players didn't have much in the way of unity or leverage. Bless Wayne Ferreira, but he did not have the standing or clout of, say, Andre Agassi or Roger Federer. The movement was also being led largely by journeymen players.

In this case, the top-five draws (the Big Four plus Roddick) in the sport appear to be unified and firmly committed. What's more, the timing appears right to examine the system. The search is on for a new ATP CEO. The directors of smaller tournaments -- easy to forget, they're ATP constituents as well -- are largely dissatisfied. The majors are more successful than ever. A lot of chess pieces and the positioning is intriguing.

Speaking of Jon Jones, tennis needs a Dana White. MMA was around for a long time before the UFC, and it wasn't very big at all. Now ...
-- Brandon, Chicago

• For the uninitiated: White is the, um, colorful head/mastermind of the UFC, an outspoken figure who bears much responsibility for the success of the organization -- and for the sport of mixed martial arts in general. He's deeply polarizing, but the explosive growth of UFC speaks for itself.

Me? I like the guy. He's a Twitter maniac. He's a brutally straight shooter. He curses. He wears tight T-shirts and a belt buckle adorned with a skull. He's not averse to calling out even the top fighters if he's displeased with their attitude. Last year, he was unhappy with the showboating antics of Anderson Silva (the Federer of the UFC) and check this out. Could you imagine a tennis chief making these remarks?

Anyway, the previous ATP CEO, Etienne de Villiers, was run out of town, in part because the players thought he was a grandstander. The current (outgoing) CEO, Adam Helfant, has been criticized for being insufficiently visible. (Note Darren Cahill's remarks at the 6:30 mark on ESPN during the U.S. Open.) I think tennis could (desperately) use a forceful and outspoken commissioner, a presence who could cut through some of the nonsense and make some of the common-sense decisions that, when allowed to go unmade, hamper the sport. The problem: Which fiefdom is willing to surrender that power?

How's this for a sign of tennis' increasing globalization: Not only is Andy Roddick the last U.S. man to win a major, but he's also the last man from any of the four countries hosting a Grand Slam to win one. Since then, it's been Switzerland, Spain, Argentina, Russia and Serbia. Maybe there is a cause-and-effect here: The U.S., France, Australia and Great Britain, four traditional powers in tennis, put too much pressure on their players to restore past glory. The players respond in kind by failing in big moments. Murray and Richard Gasquet, in particular, are good examples of guys who seem to suffer under high expectations. Conversely, someone like Djokovic doesn't have to worry about living up to history because there is no history of tennis in Serbia. Any thoughts?
-- Phil, Philadelphia

• What about this explanation? In the four Slam-hosting countries, you have what are essentially welfare states, "tennis governments" bloated by Slam revenues, fostering a sense of entitlement and complacency. In Spain and Argentina and Serbia et al., you have a small government and little infrastructure. Those countries cannot commit millions to grassroots initiatives or coaching and travel. The players who want to make it big must truly want to make it. They must, necessarily, be self-sufficient and industrious and enterprising and willing to sacrifice. Unable to rely on wild cards at their home major (and the questionable wild card swaps at the others), they must win matches outright. A system that is, on its face, unfair to have-nots ends up being a disguised blessing.

Not unrelated: What do we make of the sudden success of Donald Young? The Fox News analysis might go like this: When receiving assistance from "big government" -- the wild cards, the subsidies, the safety nets -- his motivation was questionable and his progress was hindered. When he was cut off from "public spending" and had to act on his own and innovate, he was able to flourish.

Still no article about Mike Bryan's $10,000 fine for assaulting an official!
-- John Harris, Philadelphia

• We're waiting for the appeal. Then we have every expectation that Mike will give his side of the story. The cynic will say the moral of this story is that the media and the tennis establishment are filled with racist misogynists. I say the moral of this story is that reputation matters. Mike Bryan has been an exemplary player for more than a decade, the first guy to show up at a free clinic, the last guy stay signing autographs. There's a lot of accrued good will, and it comes in handy when he runs afoul of the law.

This is a response to the use of a shot clock during matches. This has actually been used before. If you watch the '86 French Open final between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova, there is indeed a clock in both corners of the court counting down and stopping when the players start playing again. I'm surprised no one else has caught this before. This is not a new thing, so why not bring it back?
-- John, Chicago

• I did not know this. Does anyone have more details?