1. Yeah, I saw that. I'm very cautious about committing to things.
2. I have no issue with the need for training. I think it's a great idea actually; I've always thought a tennis player should be able to develop certain parts of his game as his career progressed (like Ferrer's serve, Nadal's net game, Murray's aggression). The built-in tendency for abilities to degrade is something I hadn't considered, but it also absolutely makes sense. My only concern is that since training points ALWAYS degrade without training, a player is frequently left with the choice of not playing back to back weeks (which happens frequently on the ATP calendar) or seeing their skill level decrease for the second week of play due to lack of training. Players frequently get on a roll during regional/surface swings during the year (Nadal always on clay, Murray in East Asia in 2011, Djokovic in East Asia this past year, Federer in indoor Europe at the end of 2011). The current training system invariably leaves a player relatively weaker during the middle of these seasons, rather than as the tournament favorites they are in real life. Training points don't degrade in the middle of Grand Slams, right? Perhaps training could always work on a two week cycle (or simply be postponed until after two weeks of tournaments have been played).
3. That's understandable, and fatigue between matches would have to be designed so that it mattered but it didn't routinely cripple players. It would be necessary as a disincentive to overplay if the training aspect were reformed however. And it would also allow for ability to degrade WITHIN tournaments if you get pushed too hard in early rounds. I wouldn't necessarily call it bad luck when you're playing as a power-baseliner or serve and volleyer and a player with great defensive skills wears you down. That's real tennis, and it's why good defensive skills and stamina are so crucial in the modern game. Perhaps it could be an optional setting or only kick in on higher difficulty levels.