Manic Monday Works Better Than You Think It Does -- But Not As Well As It Can
Aside from the appalling way Wimbledon treated Novak Djokovic and Adrian Mannarino, Manic Monday 2017 was normal... but with a twist.
While the Djokovic decision was terrible, the larger overall scheduling flow of the day was better and fairer than in the past.
Here's the explanation:
Since the Wimbledon women's quarterfinals are played on Tuesday, and the men get a day of rest for Wednesday (except Djokovic and Mannarino this year...), it is imperative that Wimbledon's Manic Monday schedule put all the WTA matches on early, so that every winning player has sufficient rest for the next day's quarterfinals. On Monday, the final women's round-of-16 match (Victoria Azarenka-Simona Halep) concluded before 4 p.m. local time. That's very good.
In the past, Wimbledon had put men's matches on court first -- Roger Federer or Andy Murray or another big ATP star would go on Centre Court at 1 p.m. This meant a women's match on Centre Court (or No. 1 Court) would take the court at 3:30 and not finish until 6. With a quarterfinal the next day, that's unfair. An opponent might have played an 11:30 a.m. or noon match and gotten off court as early as 1 p.m.
It is fair and right that Wimbledon, in 2017, put all the women's matches on early. Yes, it was not easy for journalists or bloggers or commentators to follow SIX women's matches going on at one time, but that is the inevitable tradeoff of Manic Monday.
The enduring and important virtue of Manic Monday is not the outrageous buffet of great tennis, but that it resets the tournament such that every quarterfinalist, semifinalist, and finalist enters those highly significant matches with relatively equal rest. Wimbledon -- whose human organizers are often clueless -- nevertheless has (and HAS owned) the best and fairest structure for its second week.
The Australian Open is the worst of the four majors, with two women's semifinalists getting no days of rest while the other two get one, and with one men's finalist getting two days of rest while the other one gets only one. Roger Federer benefited from the two days of rest he had before the 2017 Australian Open final. It's not so much that Nadal didn't get enough time, but that Federer got the EXTRA time to help him recuperate.
The French and U.S. Opens are next. Both tournaments have the same semifinalist imbalance the Australian Open does, without the imbalance for the men's finalists seen in Australia.
Yes, the on-the-spot decisions made by Wimbledon tournament organizers -- in response to on-the-ground developments -- detract from the tournament's level of fairness and create (in many though not all cases) preventable headaches for players such as Djokovic this year. However, the set structure of Wimbledon is fairer to players, and that is what Manic Monday does. Tennis fans across the world need to recognize that.
It's true that following six women's matches at once is impossible. To that extent, Manic Monday detracts from the product of tennis, especially for the WTA. However, making a fairer tournament in terms of rest is supremely important.
This begs the question: Can something be done about this at the other three majors?
The short answer: Yes. The longer answer: Will authorities and TV networks go for it? That's the hard part, the VERY hard part.
Nevertheless, on the merits, reform of major tournament scheduling -- to make these events more in line with Wimbledon (and then IMPROVE UPON the Manic Monday model) -- is worth discussing.
Let's make one simple point before unveiling the plan...
*
Because Wimbledon goes silent on Middle Sunday and values not having to play tennis on more than one Sunday, there is no way to create a long-enough tournament to spread out each round and thereby give more rest to players. Wimbledon is a 13-day event with no Middle Sunday. The Manic Monday model is as good as Wimbledon can hope to do. The set structure of the schedule cannot reasonably be improved upon.
The one improvement Wimbledon can and should make is to put four matches on its show courts starting at 11 a.m. That is how it can address scheduling backlogs and avoid additional conflicts. In terms of "which draws play on which days," however, that cannot be adjusted. Middle Sunday gets in the way of that. It is what it is.
That said, the other three majors aren't similarly constrained, which leads me to my plan -- and the epiphany behind it.
Digesting the thoughts of those who say Manic Monday doesn't serve tennis's best interests, I will concede the one point several WTA watchers made: Namely, that several high-quality matches between really good players need to be more visible. That's absolutely true. An Angelique Kerber-Garbine Muguruza match -- a battle of major champions -- shouldn't have to compete with five other interesting WTA matches.
The simple adjustment, then, is for the other three majors to carry the Manic Monday model not to the round of 16, as Wimbledon does, but to the round of 32.
It's certainly doable. As acknowledged above, it is a problem only in political and TV-related terms. The logistics are more than workable.
The French Open already plays on the first Sunday, thereby having three Sundays of play. The Australian and U.S. Opens can certainly make the same adjustment -- why wouldn't tournament organizers want a third Sunday of happy crowds with parents who can take their kids to see tennis on a weekend day or evening? Once that "first Sunday" adjustment is made, a "Manic Monday" format can easily emerge:
Sunday and Monday: first round
Tuesday and Wednesday: second round
Thursday: all singles players take a break, and doubles gets the full day with exposure doubles enthusiasts should love
Friday is where the Manic Monday model emerges, with all 32 women playing their 16 matches. With action spread across five courts, no more than three matches will occur at any one time. Moreover, the bundled nature of the day will not force that many high-end matches to compete with each other, since this is the R-32 and not the R-16. Kerber-Muguruza, or Azarenka-Halep, or Ostapenko-Svitolina would not occur on this day -- not usually. The best WTA matches would get exposure later in the tournament.
Saturday, all 32 men would play their 16 matches under a similar structure.
The wheels have been set in motion.
On the second Sunday in Melbourne and Paris and New York, the women would play their eight round-of-16 matches.
On the second Monday, the men play their round of 16... and so on:
Second Tuesday: women's quarters
Second Wednesday: men's quarters
Second Thursday: women's semis
Second Friday: men's semis
Second Saturday: women's final
Third Sunday: men's final
This model has the second-week scheduling balance of Wimbledon, only better: Round-of-16 matches would be more visible -- there would not be five or six matches going on in the WTA or ATP. No players -- women or men -- would play on consecutive days due to the universal off day on the first Thursday of the fortnight. Yet, like Wimbledon, there would be balanced and equal rest among the women's and men's field before every end-stage round of the tournament.
No, Manic Monday at Wimbledon is not a perfect solution, but it is a comparatively fairer one.
The other three majors currently don't want to introduce that model to their tournaments...... but they could, and if done the right way, they SHOULD.
While the Djokovic decision was terrible, the larger overall scheduling flow of the day was better and fairer than in the past.
Here's the explanation:
Since the Wimbledon women's quarterfinals are played on Tuesday, and the men get a day of rest for Wednesday (except Djokovic and Mannarino this year...), it is imperative that Wimbledon's Manic Monday schedule put all the WTA matches on early, so that every winning player has sufficient rest for the next day's quarterfinals. On Monday, the final women's round-of-16 match (Victoria Azarenka-Simona Halep) concluded before 4 p.m. local time. That's very good.
In the past, Wimbledon had put men's matches on court first -- Roger Federer or Andy Murray or another big ATP star would go on Centre Court at 1 p.m. This meant a women's match on Centre Court (or No. 1 Court) would take the court at 3:30 and not finish until 6. With a quarterfinal the next day, that's unfair. An opponent might have played an 11:30 a.m. or noon match and gotten off court as early as 1 p.m.
It is fair and right that Wimbledon, in 2017, put all the women's matches on early. Yes, it was not easy for journalists or bloggers or commentators to follow SIX women's matches going on at one time, but that is the inevitable tradeoff of Manic Monday.
The enduring and important virtue of Manic Monday is not the outrageous buffet of great tennis, but that it resets the tournament such that every quarterfinalist, semifinalist, and finalist enters those highly significant matches with relatively equal rest. Wimbledon -- whose human organizers are often clueless -- nevertheless has (and HAS owned) the best and fairest structure for its second week.
The Australian Open is the worst of the four majors, with two women's semifinalists getting no days of rest while the other two get one, and with one men's finalist getting two days of rest while the other one gets only one. Roger Federer benefited from the two days of rest he had before the 2017 Australian Open final. It's not so much that Nadal didn't get enough time, but that Federer got the EXTRA time to help him recuperate.
The French and U.S. Opens are next. Both tournaments have the same semifinalist imbalance the Australian Open does, without the imbalance for the men's finalists seen in Australia.
Yes, the on-the-spot decisions made by Wimbledon tournament organizers -- in response to on-the-ground developments -- detract from the tournament's level of fairness and create (in many though not all cases) preventable headaches for players such as Djokovic this year. However, the set structure of Wimbledon is fairer to players, and that is what Manic Monday does. Tennis fans across the world need to recognize that.
It's true that following six women's matches at once is impossible. To that extent, Manic Monday detracts from the product of tennis, especially for the WTA. However, making a fairer tournament in terms of rest is supremely important.
This begs the question: Can something be done about this at the other three majors?
The short answer: Yes. The longer answer: Will authorities and TV networks go for it? That's the hard part, the VERY hard part.
Nevertheless, on the merits, reform of major tournament scheduling -- to make these events more in line with Wimbledon (and then IMPROVE UPON the Manic Monday model) -- is worth discussing.
Let's make one simple point before unveiling the plan...
*
Because Wimbledon goes silent on Middle Sunday and values not having to play tennis on more than one Sunday, there is no way to create a long-enough tournament to spread out each round and thereby give more rest to players. Wimbledon is a 13-day event with no Middle Sunday. The Manic Monday model is as good as Wimbledon can hope to do. The set structure of the schedule cannot reasonably be improved upon.
The one improvement Wimbledon can and should make is to put four matches on its show courts starting at 11 a.m. That is how it can address scheduling backlogs and avoid additional conflicts. In terms of "which draws play on which days," however, that cannot be adjusted. Middle Sunday gets in the way of that. It is what it is.
That said, the other three majors aren't similarly constrained, which leads me to my plan -- and the epiphany behind it.
Digesting the thoughts of those who say Manic Monday doesn't serve tennis's best interests, I will concede the one point several WTA watchers made: Namely, that several high-quality matches between really good players need to be more visible. That's absolutely true. An Angelique Kerber-Garbine Muguruza match -- a battle of major champions -- shouldn't have to compete with five other interesting WTA matches.
The simple adjustment, then, is for the other three majors to carry the Manic Monday model not to the round of 16, as Wimbledon does, but to the round of 32.
It's certainly doable. As acknowledged above, it is a problem only in political and TV-related terms. The logistics are more than workable.
The French Open already plays on the first Sunday, thereby having three Sundays of play. The Australian and U.S. Opens can certainly make the same adjustment -- why wouldn't tournament organizers want a third Sunday of happy crowds with parents who can take their kids to see tennis on a weekend day or evening? Once that "first Sunday" adjustment is made, a "Manic Monday" format can easily emerge:
Sunday and Monday: first round
Tuesday and Wednesday: second round
Thursday: all singles players take a break, and doubles gets the full day with exposure doubles enthusiasts should love
Friday is where the Manic Monday model emerges, with all 32 women playing their 16 matches. With action spread across five courts, no more than three matches will occur at any one time. Moreover, the bundled nature of the day will not force that many high-end matches to compete with each other, since this is the R-32 and not the R-16. Kerber-Muguruza, or Azarenka-Halep, or Ostapenko-Svitolina would not occur on this day -- not usually. The best WTA matches would get exposure later in the tournament.
Saturday, all 32 men would play their 16 matches under a similar structure.
The wheels have been set in motion.
On the second Sunday in Melbourne and Paris and New York, the women would play their eight round-of-16 matches.
On the second Monday, the men play their round of 16... and so on:
Second Tuesday: women's quarters
Second Wednesday: men's quarters
Second Thursday: women's semis
Second Friday: men's semis
Second Saturday: women's final
Third Sunday: men's final
This model has the second-week scheduling balance of Wimbledon, only better: Round-of-16 matches would be more visible -- there would not be five or six matches going on in the WTA or ATP. No players -- women or men -- would play on consecutive days due to the universal off day on the first Thursday of the fortnight. Yet, like Wimbledon, there would be balanced and equal rest among the women's and men's field before every end-stage round of the tournament.
No, Manic Monday at Wimbledon is not a perfect solution, but it is a comparatively fairer one.
The other three majors currently don't want to introduce that model to their tournaments...... but they could, and if done the right way, they SHOULD.
Comments
Post a Comment