I see Wilander has made some interesting comments about the Olympics. His point is that it should have bigger ranking points to attract the big names, and this will build the tradition. If it looks like a 2nd tier event, it is embarassing compared to all the other sports where the Olympics is the pinnacle.<br /><br />It’s a good argument, but only one problem. Wimbledon started in 1877. It’s hard to compete with that kind of tradition. However, as the games com around just every 4 years, you would expect a bit more enthusiasm from the players. As usual, Agassi has the right attitude. He loved winning the Olympics, and rates it as a career highlight. Maybe he got the buzz from Steffi. They are the only players to have won all four slams plus the Olympics (although Graf did it all in one year, 1988).<br /><br />The Olympic title will never mean the same as a slam. But given a better schedule and a bit more thought, it could be just as important as the masters title at the end of the year, or any other so-called “5th slam”. <br /><br />Perhaps the ATP could move the schedule around so that the games is the culmination of a series of events, like a slam is? They could also increase the field to 128 from 64. And if the masters events are a compulsory part of your ranking, why not the Olympics?<br /><br />Give the top 50 or so players auto entry whatever nationality, and allocate the rest of the places according to countries who qualify /apply which is in keeping with the spirit of the games.<br /><br />And allow coaches beside the players, like Davis Cup. It adds to the drama.<br /><br />Either that, or make it an under-21s event (like football does).