Round Robin Grand Slams would work [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Round Robin Grand Slams would work

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-18-2008, 03:07 AM
Top 16 players
4 groups of 4.
Top 2 of each into the quarters.

Fans would know the top 16 well and it would make more exciting tournies. It would stop the boring first round matches between nobodies and the random upsets by crappy players which ruin tournies.

What would you rather have

1) Federer vs Djokovic and Murray vs Simon.
Or
2) Safin vs Davydenko and Tipsarevic vs Karlovic

With my system 1) is more likely and 2) is impossible.

Would make the GS insanely fun.

I know most wont like it, but it would be great for tennis and would increase its popularity.

Smoke944
11-18-2008, 03:10 AM
asdf

Mimi
11-18-2008, 03:22 AM
good suggestion, but i still prefer the old method :wavey:

Pablin777
11-18-2008, 03:26 AM
Round Robin really sucks, I totally agree with Federer.

Double Elimination would be nice! Just like this
http://www.wpba.com/cms/?pid=1004811

For Example Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray lose in second round, bad day!!! but... in this case all of them have another chance... playing in one loss bracket... For example ... in the case Murray loses another match again then he goes home ... but winning he would be safe... cause One loss bracket winner meets winner bracket winner and the winner is the champion.

anyway... this wouldn´t work in Grand Slams only because a matter of schedule.
But it´s a good choice talking about Miami, Indian Wells or Master Cup.

Serenidad
11-18-2008, 03:32 AM
More RFK posting gold. I'd prefer when Nadal gets blown off the court in the two HC slams that he doesn't have another chance to win. Although, I would get to the chance see him get rocked twice a tournament.

~*BGT*~
11-18-2008, 03:51 AM
I'd prefer Safin/Davydenko to Murray/Simon.. :shrug:

Snoo Foo
11-18-2008, 04:06 AM
yes, we really need this, because we've never seen federer and djokovic play each other in a gs.

KaiserT
11-18-2008, 04:06 AM
Wow, what absolute and utter rubbish.....

opeth84
11-18-2008, 04:07 AM
What a stupid idea. How boring it would be to have only 16 players. The masters cup is a good idea once a year but players should have the fear of exiting the tournament after just one loss. And by the sound of the new points distribution with events next year there rankings will be protected enough even if they do have early exits in slams. And on that note what is wrong with upsets? What about Guga's first French Open run?
Or recent Australian open finalists? These aren't flukes they are just playing some amazing tennis how is that ruining the tournament? Im sure James Blake and Mr Disney will agree with you though :rolleyes:

KaiserT
11-18-2008, 04:13 AM
"Would make the GS insanely fun."

:rolleyes:

Snoo Foo
11-18-2008, 04:15 AM
"Would make the GS insanely fun."

:rolleyes:

if by "fun" he means "boring as fuck," ITA!

krakenzero
11-18-2008, 04:18 AM
Mr. De Villiers is that you?:wavey:

Collective
11-18-2008, 04:19 AM
Do we need another thread for the worst idea since mixed doubles?

peterparker
11-18-2008, 04:23 AM
I would be bored. Once you get past the top 4, 7/12 players are tedious. Two years ago 8 out of top 16 were boring. I would rather watch gasquet, hewitt, safin over ljubcic, robredo, davydenko.

JimmyV
11-18-2008, 04:28 AM
Why not just top 8? Actually screw that, why not just the top 4 in the world since you know it's between them anyway? Defending champ gets an automatic bye into the finals and the top 3 play it out, whoever has the best record goes to the final. Should really spice things up, and free up a lot more time in the tennis calendar. Win/Win situation.

aussie_fan
11-18-2008, 04:55 AM
Would make the GS insanely fun.



Have you been to a GS?

Scotso
11-18-2008, 04:58 AM
The best part of majors for me is in seeing what young/low ranked/unknown players will step it up and pull off upsets.

FedFan_2007
11-18-2008, 05:14 AM
RFK in the pole position for 2008 ACC champion!

Action Jackson
11-18-2008, 05:49 AM
Gaining more votes for the ACC.

finishingmove
11-18-2008, 09:50 AM
i agree with double elimination.

just tank your first match, and beat losers on your way to the final.

VolandriFan
11-18-2008, 10:41 AM
Of course they would work. Unfortunately, they'd just suck.

GlennMirnyi
11-18-2008, 10:44 AM
Someone just ban this moron.

federernadalfan
11-18-2008, 10:49 AM
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/ORLY/1/Bush_O_RLY.jpg

bjurra
11-18-2008, 11:35 AM
Why not just top 8? Actually screw that, why not just the top 4 in the world since you know it's between them anyway? Defending champ gets an automatic bye into the finals and the top 3 play it out, whoever has the best record goes to the final. Should really spice things up, and free up a lot more time in the tennis calendar. Win/Win situation.

I have a better idea. Each GS should consist of 32 players playing each other once. After 31 matches, the final winner will truely be the best player. That would also prevent the top32 players from participating in too many MM tournaments since a GS would last two months.

brief
11-18-2008, 01:08 PM
Reminds me of that European footie super league idea that used to be bandied about.

TheBoiledEgg
11-18-2008, 08:39 PM
this idea of yours few yrs ago, Rafa, Muggay and Djoke would never have been allowed to play slams

now thats a good idea, if only it was started back in 2004.

Andi-M
11-18-2008, 09:07 PM
How could you become a top 16 player if your not allowed to enter 4 tournies a year that are worth by far the most points.

Eg. Tsonga at AO this year...couldnt have happened under your system.

Everything is fine as it is i know its the off season but Geez!

KaiserT
11-18-2008, 09:11 PM
I think we should just let this thread die a shameful death.

JimmyV
11-18-2008, 09:19 PM
I have a better idea. Each GS should consist of 32 players playing each other once. After 31 matches, the final winner will truely be the best player. That would also prevent the top32 players from participating in too many MM tournaments since a GS would last two months.

Excellent idea, but we should stick with tradition and keep 128 man draws.

NinaNina19
11-18-2008, 09:31 PM
I think at RG they should make 128 players fight to be the finalist like they did in wimbledon before. It's really ridiculous.

turtle-rn
11-18-2008, 10:58 PM
I have a better idea. Each GS should consist of 32 players playing each other once. After 31 matches, the final winner will truely be the best player.
why after 31 matches? 32 players playing each other once amounts to about 500 matches. But yay, no more whinning because of the draw.

Byrd
11-18-2008, 11:16 PM
RFK trying to get votes for ACC, what a dick :haha:

bjurra
11-19-2008, 12:26 AM
why after 31 matches? 32 players playing each other once amounts to about 500 matches. But yay, no more whinning because of the draw.

I meant the champion would be worthy after having played 31 matches.

Round robin sucks btw, even in the Masters.

Kolya
11-19-2008, 02:13 AM
I don't like the fact that your chance to stay in the tournament is dependable on other people's matches.

Leads to strategic plans and tanking.

fast_clay
11-19-2008, 02:16 AM
THREAD STATUS: sh!t

bjurra
11-19-2008, 08:41 AM
I don't like the fact that your chance to stay in the tournament is dependable on other people's matches.

Leads to strategic plans and tanking.

Exactly and that is why Masters Cup shouldn't have RR.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-19-2008, 03:40 PM
I don't like the fact that your chance to stay in the tournament is dependable on other people's matches.

Leads to strategic plans and tanking.

Intelligence should be rewarded.

Dumb brutes shouldnt win, the intelligent player should.

Smasher
11-19-2008, 05:40 PM
All 128 players should play against each other and run a marathon after that. The one with the fastest time wins. But seriously, please no RR anymore...

Nidhogg
11-19-2008, 06:01 PM
You can't be for real. Who made you up?

Black Adam
11-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I don't belie that that system would work my friend. The only change tennis needs now is a better ratio of fast courts to slow courts. The current ratio is biased in favour of slow courts. It's been the same since the end of 2003, probably some conspiracy against players like Roddick, Lopez etc.

Reminds me of that European footie super league idea that used to be bandied about.
I think it was Platini who suggested that. He wants the champions league to have a 128 draw like in a tennis Grand Slam Tournament:o:o:eek::eek: THat's even worse than the time Maradonna suggested playing with one defender, 5 midfielders and and 4 strikers:eek:

KaiserT
11-19-2008, 06:22 PM
Why are people even replying to this thread?

Gives the OP some sense of legitimacy that people are even posting in response the shite he writes.

Utterly pointless.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-21-2008, 03:32 AM
Why are people even replying to this thread?

Gives the OP some sense of legitimacy that people are even posting in response the shite he writes.

Utterly pointless.

Some people cant evolve.

Sad, oh well stay monkeys or join the light.

castle007
11-21-2008, 01:22 PM
round robin GS??

:scared::scared:

Richard_from_Cal
11-21-2008, 04:17 PM
Respectfully disagree. Draw size (16?) is too small. That said:
http://www.gambling-guide.info/tennis/events/wimbledon-history.php
Here are some of the key events in the history of the All England Championships:

1877: The All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club, based off Worple Road in Wimbledon, introduced the first Lawn Tennis Championships. Only Gentlemen's Singles matches were played, and the event was won by Spencer Gore. The final attracted an audience of 200 people.

1884: The event was expanded to include a Ladies' Singles Championship (won by Maud Watson) and Gentlemen's Doubles Championship (won by the popular British twins Ernest and William Renshaw, who dominated both the singles and doubles championships until 1889).


1905: This year was significant because it produced the first overseas champion in the form of American Ladies' Singles winner Mary Sutton.

1907: This year's championship produced the first non-British winner of the Men's Singles event when it was won by Norman Brookes of Australia.

1919: By this year, the All England Championships had become so popular that the organisers had to begin to restrict the number of players that could enter. Although players nominated for the championship by their national tennis associations were accepted straight away, applications for self-nominated players were passed through to a Sub-Committee who decided whether or not each player would be accepted into the tournament.

1922: An important year in the history of Wimbledon for two reasons.

Firstly, The All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club moved to new premises at Church Road in Wimbledon, London. The new site was designed to hold 14,000 spectators and was opened by King George V. Wimbledon is still held at this site today.

Secondly, the format of the All England Championship changed dramatically with the abolition of the Challenge Round. This meant that the previous year's champions had to play through the rounds in the same way as all other players if they wished to defend their titles.


1924: A significant development took place at this year's Wimbledon event when a simple seeding system was introduced based on ability and nationality.
..and on...
..and on...
..up 'til 2001...
..in that history.

Nothing is written in stone. (Excepting, I guess, Rudyard Kipling's "If,"....and it's on a board, anyway...) :unsure::lol::smash:

Arkulari
11-21-2008, 05:23 PM
omg :o
remember this at ACC, this guy is GOLD :rolleyes:

Richard_from_Cal
11-21-2008, 05:29 PM
omg :o
remember this at ACC, this guy is GOLD :rolleyes:
:lol:

http://www.universalhub.com/images/hatoffs2006-02-05.jpg

tennis2tennis
11-22-2008, 08:28 PM
I don't like the fact that your chance to stay in the tournament is dependable on other people's matches.

Leads to strategic plans and tanking.


exactly my friend now there's a place were axis of evil can be formed

anyway the whole point of a grand slam is the drama that comes with instant eliminations, having a seeded player getting their butt handed to them by a journeyman or junior player is what gives it the added dimensions of fun....think no grave yard court in wimbledon...