Does the U.S. Open need a roof?

Well the debate will always heat up as New York gets wet. The U.S. Open will put the men in the lower half of the draw in a difficult position, having to win four consecutive matches in four days to win the title. It’s a grueling task for sure, especially playing best-of-five sets. And for guys like Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, who have been dealing with various injuries throughout the year, it could be a huge problem.

Despite all that, I don’t know if a roof is really needed for the U.S. Open.

Bad weather were a part of the Grand Slams, and I don’t like the idea of taking away that element. I’m intrigued by Roddick, Murray  and Nadal maybe having to win four consecutive days to see if they can do it.

Also, a roof on the main stadium creates an uneven playing field. Players like Roger Federer, Nadal or Novak Djokovic will always have an opportunity to play under the roof and won’t have to worry about scheduling chaos like the rest of the field. The top players have a big enough advantage already.

There’s also the cost of putting on the roof. We’re talking about millions to put on a roof. But unlike Wimbledon, rain isn’t a constant factor. Is it really cost effective? Lets say a roof is $10 million, which would be on the low end. Although that’s affordable for the USTA and its considerable resources, this has to be a business decision. As much of a headache as this year has been with the weather, it’s not a recurring problem every year.

JIM CURLEY’S BAD DECISION:  While we’re talking about the weather, there comes the USTA’s decision to force the players to take to the court, including three of the game’s biggest stars — Nadal, Roddick and Murray. Tennis is about the stars, and the USTA elected to put the stars in danger for television. At some point, U.S. Open tournament director has to worry more about protecting tennis’ best interest rather than television’s best interest. Nadal and Roddick have been battling injuries all year, and playing on a wet court would jeopardize their careers. Yes, the schedule promises to be grueling for all three, as they will have to play four consecutive days if they are to win the U.S. Open. All three wanted to do that rather than risk their health.

The USTA sent out a release, and there was one comment that was bothersome. It said they have the best referees in the world and they make the decision. If the referees thought the consitions were fit for playing, I’m not sure they are the best referees in the world. Or maybe the referees were forced to make sure play happened. I don’t know.

Jim Curley should get heavily criticized for how everything played out this morning. But anything beyond criticism would be excessive. Curley has been one of the best tournament directors in the world, and the U.S. Open is a great, great tournament. He made one poor decision that could have put people in danger, but no one was hurt. Hopefully the criticism will help Curley better evaluate the situation next time. But if Curley doesn’t learn from what happened this morning, then that will be a real problem.