The Cincinnati Open is my favorite tournament. I've had series passes for the past 10 years and have to travel to get there. I've been dreading this change. I debated buying a series pass this year, but I did it anyway even though there is no way that I will be there for the entire event.
In the old format, I actually loved the qualifying and early rounds - so many high quality matches going on at the same time! You could easily switch matches if one was boring or something exciting was going on elsewhere. Now, I'm planning to skip qualifying and probably round 1. I may not even stay for the semis and finals. The final 2 days were always iffy anyway. What happens if they feature players I either don't like or don't care about? There are no other alternatives. Now, with them spread out more, it's even worse. I may end up selling them, thus recouping some of the inflated cost of this expanded tournament.
Agree. I also dished out to keep my series seat but plan on arriving probably for round 2. It's downright rude of the corporate greed to tell us their product is better.
Especially when they’re doing it for WTA only/ATP only events - you just don’t need to drag them out for that long. Plus Shanghai expanding has led to similar weird midweek finals and start dates in Tokyo/Beijing & the 250’s before them - when it’s totally unnecessary.
As for $$ opportunities for lower ranked players - a few players have said when they’ve qualified/won a few rounds that their expenses have gone up a lot (if they have a coach/team with them - then they’re paying for an extra hotel room - and the tournament hotels are usually pricey)
In Rome/Madrid when they take up a whole month, it also means a lot of players only get 2 matches in during that time. The CH175’s are good, but due to the scheduling a lot of players that want to play those are unable to (and they’re mainly benefitting players ranked 25ish-80)
Watching on TV they just lose all momentum as they drag on for so long, it’s difficult to stay interested.
It seems like they’re just trying to compete with the slams - but it’s a much less compelling version of that. The old format where you’d get the best players facing early was what made them unique and “premium”, not how long they go for.
The best ATP events now (aside from MC & Paris that haven’t expanded) are the weeks with 2 x 500’s. They have strong fields, they’re condensed - and on Tennis TV there’s more matches with commentary than you get at the 1000’s
Hopefully they come to their senses about this - hogging up and dragging out the calendar with diluted events surely isn’t the answer
Usually when something that seems irrational is happening, there is an economic explanation. someone is making money from it and had the power to push it through. I'd like to know who. I assume it is the master's 1000 tournaments who will make more money by having more tickets to sell. But why did their position win out? We know from the beginning that Gaudenzi wanted to do this and he did it. Again, why? Why does he think this is in the ATP's interest. Is the money gained by the Masters1000 enough to make up for losses in other tournaments, and does that money get back to the ATP. I've read everything I've seen on this issue and no one has explained the economics of it. If you could, I'd be grateful
I am in the same boat as Roy DeRousse. I've been attending cincy for many years, but this will be my third year with series tickets. It may be my last or I may just do a few single session tickets in the future. I have a friend in the area I like to visit, otherwise I'd ditch the entire tournament altogether.
There are a few more reasons to hate changes at cincy that Ben did not bring up. Last year they started making "improved upgrades." This included BLOCKING fans from seeing practice courts, and blocking off even more couetside seating in grandstand for the rich only. The poor must risk their health in direct sunlight unless they want to pay for VERY EXPENSIVE daily upgrades.
Seeing players on a personal level has been one of the best parts of the tournament and it is slowly becoming impossible. All the things I love about cincy are not dying. Ticket prices, daily value, fan to player experience, affordable seats for true fans. It is slowly turning into Indian Wells, probably with the ultimate goal to become as evil as the US Open.
Great piece. As a fan who has the time too watch most of what is offered on the ATP tour on television, I also think some breaks are nice. But not days between matches, but a week or two between tournaments (many players think that too, not only for economic reasons). So these 1000 tournaments are just becoming too long. I may only follow some of my favorite players from their start, but when/if these are eliminated, I honestly lose interest in the tournament. I may watch the final if I remember it, but my full focus on a 14-day tournament are reserved for Grand Slams.
I am glad that they only stretched these into 3 weeks instead of 4, if they were going to go to 96 players. And that’s how Canada ends up with the weeknights to end.
The point about compression of matches into the nights is a great one. I would love a deep dive on how tournaments make money and how the split of decisions is between them at the tour.
I remember I think one of the China weeks, the men’s and women’s final were at like the exact same time. I’m sure it’s a great time to sell expensive tickets in China! But then Tennis Channel didn’t air the women’s live. Seems like overall value would be maximized from staggering, but that needs to get coordinated and all parties get their cut.
The Cincinnati Open is my favorite tournament. I've had series passes for the past 10 years and have to travel to get there. I've been dreading this change. I debated buying a series pass this year, but I did it anyway even though there is no way that I will be there for the entire event.
In the old format, I actually loved the qualifying and early rounds - so many high quality matches going on at the same time! You could easily switch matches if one was boring or something exciting was going on elsewhere. Now, I'm planning to skip qualifying and probably round 1. I may not even stay for the semis and finals. The final 2 days were always iffy anyway. What happens if they feature players I either don't like or don't care about? There are no other alternatives. Now, with them spread out more, it's even worse. I may end up selling them, thus recouping some of the inflated cost of this expanded tournament.
Agree. I also dished out to keep my series seat but plan on arriving probably for round 2. It's downright rude of the corporate greed to tell us their product is better.
The expansion of the Masters has gone too far…..
Especially when they’re doing it for WTA only/ATP only events - you just don’t need to drag them out for that long. Plus Shanghai expanding has led to similar weird midweek finals and start dates in Tokyo/Beijing & the 250’s before them - when it’s totally unnecessary.
As for $$ opportunities for lower ranked players - a few players have said when they’ve qualified/won a few rounds that their expenses have gone up a lot (if they have a coach/team with them - then they’re paying for an extra hotel room - and the tournament hotels are usually pricey)
In Rome/Madrid when they take up a whole month, it also means a lot of players only get 2 matches in during that time. The CH175’s are good, but due to the scheduling a lot of players that want to play those are unable to (and they’re mainly benefitting players ranked 25ish-80)
Watching on TV they just lose all momentum as they drag on for so long, it’s difficult to stay interested.
It seems like they’re just trying to compete with the slams - but it’s a much less compelling version of that. The old format where you’d get the best players facing early was what made them unique and “premium”, not how long they go for.
The best ATP events now (aside from MC & Paris that haven’t expanded) are the weeks with 2 x 500’s. They have strong fields, they’re condensed - and on Tennis TV there’s more matches with commentary than you get at the 1000’s
Hopefully they come to their senses about this - hogging up and dragging out the calendar with diluted events surely isn’t the answer
* Lose momentum AND take forever to feel like they actually get started
Usually when something that seems irrational is happening, there is an economic explanation. someone is making money from it and had the power to push it through. I'd like to know who. I assume it is the master's 1000 tournaments who will make more money by having more tickets to sell. But why did their position win out? We know from the beginning that Gaudenzi wanted to do this and he did it. Again, why? Why does he think this is in the ATP's interest. Is the money gained by the Masters1000 enough to make up for losses in other tournaments, and does that money get back to the ATP. I've read everything I've seen on this issue and no one has explained the economics of it. If you could, I'd be grateful
I am in the same boat as Roy DeRousse. I've been attending cincy for many years, but this will be my third year with series tickets. It may be my last or I may just do a few single session tickets in the future. I have a friend in the area I like to visit, otherwise I'd ditch the entire tournament altogether.
There are a few more reasons to hate changes at cincy that Ben did not bring up. Last year they started making "improved upgrades." This included BLOCKING fans from seeing practice courts, and blocking off even more couetside seating in grandstand for the rich only. The poor must risk their health in direct sunlight unless they want to pay for VERY EXPENSIVE daily upgrades.
Seeing players on a personal level has been one of the best parts of the tournament and it is slowly becoming impossible. All the things I love about cincy are not dying. Ticket prices, daily value, fan to player experience, affordable seats for true fans. It is slowly turning into Indian Wells, probably with the ultimate goal to become as evil as the US Open.
*now dying.
Great piece. As a fan who has the time too watch most of what is offered on the ATP tour on television, I also think some breaks are nice. But not days between matches, but a week or two between tournaments (many players think that too, not only for economic reasons). So these 1000 tournaments are just becoming too long. I may only follow some of my favorite players from their start, but when/if these are eliminated, I honestly lose interest in the tournament. I may watch the final if I remember it, but my full focus on a 14-day tournament are reserved for Grand Slams.
I am glad that they only stretched these into 3 weeks instead of 4, if they were going to go to 96 players. And that’s how Canada ends up with the weeknights to end.
The point about compression of matches into the nights is a great one. I would love a deep dive on how tournaments make money and how the split of decisions is between them at the tour.
I remember I think one of the China weeks, the men’s and women’s final were at like the exact same time. I’m sure it’s a great time to sell expensive tickets in China! But then Tennis Channel didn’t air the women’s live. Seems like overall value would be maximized from staggering, but that needs to get coordinated and all parties get their cut.