The starting point for this debate was the US Open making and complete and utter hash of existing. While having to deal with very unfortunate weather conditions, the US Open made as many mistakes as it was possible to make. For a start they didn't have a roof, though given the huge sums involved this isn't the worst thing. They also refused to use covers. This is just stupid. To top it off, they sent Murray and Nadal out in what was essentially a tropical thunderstorm.
This seemed to be the final straw, particularly for Nadal, who for once refused to tow the party line and launched an interesting attack on the ITF (who run Grand Slams). Essentially the position was they didn't care for the players and having both the ITF and the ATP run things was not too successful. How can they fix things?
Fix the Davis Cup
The Davis Cup is actually quite a good idea in theory. It is a bit different to the usual format, gives doubles an important role and gets some team spirit into a mostly individual sport. However, the current format is fairly absurd. Asking Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc to play two 5-set matches within a week of the US Open is not great and the schedule is spread out over a number of fairly inconvenient times in the schedule.
One possibility would be to make the Davis Cup a mandatory event, replacing a Masters Event, and give out ranking points. This would give players an extra free week and perhaps even increase the stature of the Davis Cup. On the down side, it isn't fair on players like Andy Murray and Giles Muller who are from countries where they are the only tennis players.
Another would be to change the format. Perhaps a World Group made up of only a top 8, and a significantly less long winded qualifying schedule. A drop from 5 sets to 3 sets could also be introduced. There is still a place for the Davis Cup, but it does need some sort of revamp.
No mandatory tournaments
The only real need for mandatory tournaments is because of the worry that if there wasn't, there would be no real motivation to play in some of the Masters such as Shanghai. However, in many ways players find a way to manipulate the schedule to their needs. Djokovic has picked up a timely injury and will miss the Asian swing. Federer has essentially played the 'can't be arsed' card to not attend Shanghai while Murray just loses in the first round every so often when he can't be bothered.
On the flipside, even without mandatory events I doubt there would be too much of a difference. Many would suggest smaller tournaments would sturggle, but I'm not so sure. Queens is only a 250 event yet as its the only grass court event before Wimbledon it usually attracts most of the top 10. I doubt people attend just as it is mandatory to play in a certain number of 250 events. Murray is on a mission to finish the year ranked 3rd and is playing in Bangkok, Beijing and Shanghai. Djokovic often plays his home event, and sponsors will always find a way to tempt a player to appear.
As for the Masters Events, I doubt many would suffer. Even the top 4 need ranking points and this is a good way of getting them. Shanghai, Paris and potentially one of Indian Wells/Miami might suffer, but not enough to ruin everything. And as detailed above, if a player doesn't want to play, then they won't.
Rearrange the entire schedule
The schedule doesn't really need too many changes but some of it doesn't make sense. The Australian Open is out of sync with the Asian swing, meaning players need to travel out to the far east twice. A swing of Beijing, Shanghai then Australian Open in January/February would make much more sense. Keep the players out in the far East for one time a year and lend more credence to the Shanghai Masters too. This could all be done by moving the Australian Open back a few weeks.
Tournaments such as Rotterdam and Marseille could then swap to now, and provide a lead in to the Paris Masters. The World Tour Finals could be moved forward a month and give the players all of November and December off. This seems a fairly simple solution that wouldn't involve altering much of the rest of the calender.
More competition for the top 4
It perhaps says it all that out of the 7 players to reach all four Grand Slam semi finals in a year, four of them are Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray. None of them did any worse than reaching the Quarter Finals. This was not the case in the past. For example in 1997, Pete Sampras won two Grand Slams, reached the third round and the fourth round in the others. In 1995 he lost in the 1st round at the French, and in 1996 in the 3rd round of the Australian.
Michael Stich, who stuck his oar in to the debate, had his best year in 1991. Yet he still only got to the third round of the Australian Open and the quarters at the US. Boris Becker reached the quarters or better in 3 events in 1990, yet lost in the 1st round in the French. In 1991, it was only the third round at the US Open. In 1987, Edberg reached one final, two semis, and lost in the 3rd at the French. This goes on and on.
Now part of this is the issue is that the surfaces are all very similar now, but whatever the reason the players are currently are putting in more effort in the Grand Slams than players in the past. In addition, the game is more physically demanding than back then. Something Michael Stich tends to ignore when he answered the question nobody had asked him.
Conclusion
There are solutions to the problem, but none of them will be used!
