"There’s too much irrelevant tennis at times": Tim Henman sees lack of clear tennis narrative in schedule debate with Laura Robson

The ATP calendar has been a topic of debate for decades, and the 2025 ATP Finals offered an opportunity to revisit the conversation with insights from Laura Robson and Tim Henman. Their discussion highlighted the challenges players face balancing competition, rest, and the growing pressures of modern tennis.

Robson kicked off the conversation at the ATP Finals focusing on the notion that players have control over their schedules. “There’s some truth to that,” she said on Sky Sports to Gigi Salmon, “but you need to take into account the bonus pool. Players don’t qualify for the bonus unless they play a certain number of tournaments, and there are also mandatory requirements at the 500s along with the Masters 1000s.”

She added, “Sure, you can skip events if you want, but a lot is being taken away from you at the same time. I don’t necessarily agree that a player can just pick and choose which weeks to play and simply listen to their body. The schedule is designed so that top players are encouraged to compete almost every week.”

Robson noted the divide between top-ranked players and those still trying to qualify. “If you’re Carlos or Jannik and you can afford to take a couple of weeks off — which they’ve said they will next year — that’s one thing. But if you’re below that ranking and trying to qualify for events like this, it doesn’t really align.”

Henman argued that excessive tournaments can confuse fans. “There’s too much irrelevant tennis at times,” he said. “Historically in February, there have been 12 tournaments in four weeks. You’ve got Sinner playing here, Alcaraz there, Zverev here, Djokovic over there. It doesn’t provide a clear narrative for the fan.”

He continued, “Having weeks at the highest level where there is no tennis is a good thing. It gives players a chance to rest and fans a chance to build excitement for the next tournament. I’m not a massive F1 fan, but it’s easy to follow: races every couple of weekends, 20-something races in total, points added up, and gaps in between. Tennis has great assets — the Grand Slams and Masters 1000s — but events like 12-day Masters are too long. Eight or nine days works better, allowing players to compete at the highest level while resting and recovering.”

Henman praised Andrea Gaudenzi’s analogy of the tour calendar as a book with different authors and chapters, but acknowledged, “Right now it’s very difficult for fans to follow. If I could change one thing, it would be organising the calendar.”

Robson questioned the idea of adding a Saudi Masters 1000 to an already packed schedule. “When you come back from Australia there’s no respite. You go straight indoors — Rotterdam for the men, Doha and Dubai on the WTA side — and even a couple of indoor events before that. It feels like they’re trying to add, add, add, but we haven’t really seen any of the sanctions come back yet, which was initially what the bonus pool and Saudi investment money was for.”

The topic of exhibitions also arose, with Henman asked by Gigi Salmon who made the point about the fact that players are there own bosses so to speak. “You have to remember that tennis players are individual contractors. If someone comes and offers you a certain amount of money to do something, however much you already have, it’s difficult to say no. That’s their prerogative.”

He added, “There are rules about how exhibitions can take place and how many consecutive days players can compete. But if you address the calendar properly and say, ‘We start in January and finish at the end of October,’ then players have a genuine opportunity to follow a really good schedule. At the end of the year, if they want to play exhibitions, great. If they want a few weeks’ holiday, build up physically, practise, improve, and get ready for the next year — that becomes viable.”

Henman stressed the current challenge: “Right now, we’re at the Tour-ending Championships in Turin, then Davis Cup a little later. If you play all those events, you’re starting the first week in January and finishing at the end of November. How can you really rest, recover, prepare, practise, try to improve for the start of next year? It’s so hard.”

Henman elaborated on why reforming the calendar is so complex. “Andrea Gaudenzi is chair of the ATP — it’s 50% players, 50% tournaments, so he’s on both sides. On the tournament side, they own sanctions — they own assets. You’ve got the Masters 1000s, the 500s, the 250s. If you wanted to streamline, you’d say: we want the thousands, we want the 500s, but the 250s probably need to be part of the player pathway, a way to transition from 200 to 100 to 50 and into the big events. But those tournaments paid millions of dollars for their assets. You can’t just say, ‘We’d like some of you to disappear, some of you to move down a level.’ It doesn’t work like that. That’s why making big alterations to the calendar is so difficult.”

Finally, Robson welcomed the ATP’s introduction of a heat rule for next year. “Especially after Shanghai, where the temperatures were brutal. The WTA has had a heat rule for as long as I can remember. It’s basically a 10-minute break if a match goes to a third set. It lets you get off court, cool down, jump in a freezing cold shower, change your kit, and make sure you’re taking care of yourself before the decider. It’s long overdue, and something they’ve been talking about for a while. But it takes a unanimous decision to get it over the line.”