WTF Format [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

WTF Format

MrExcel
11-25-2011, 02:40 PM
After biting my tongue for long enough I've decided to ask for opinions on the WTF Round Robin format (apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere).

For me, this supposedly being the fifth biggest tournament of the year, where every match deserves to be meaningful, with importance and relevance. Yet we frequently get meaningless/dead matches for one or both of the players involved. We are also left working out numerous permutations mid-way through the tournament with a players' fate possibly resting in someone else's hands or perhaps the player only needing to win a certain number of sets/games to progress. Should all this really happen at the end of season tournament, second only to the Grand Slams?

I personally hate Round Robin in tennis, full stop. For all the reasons above and also that individual sports should be gladitorial, knock-out based compeitions, no second chances when you lose.

So what would be better? Again, personally, I would like to see a knock-out draw, but obviously 8 players would not be enough to make it a tournament. Therefore I'd go with the Top 16 players, with 8 seeds, the rest randomly drawn. As for the doubles, knock-out also, 8 teams, 4 seeds, which makes the draw half the size of the singles (as it is at all other tournaments).

You could then make the World Tour Finals a six-day event (which would make sense as it directly follows Paris from next year) with the first two days being singles only, doubles starting on Day 3.

Below is a mock-up version of what could have happened this year (scores based on actual WTF results or recent matches).

For me this would be a great event, each session featuring top quality matches, and each match meaningful.

So... Do you like the current Round Robin system, my suggestion of a 16 draw knock-out, or something else?

Would be very interesting to get your views!

Thanks


http://www.menstennisforums.com/photos/data/500/WTF1.jpg

Looner
11-25-2011, 02:48 PM
Just because of the results in your hypothetical draw, your idea is stupid as anyone who knows anything about tennis would say Djoko would have beaten Federer. So this whole thread is a waste of space.

samanosuke
11-25-2011, 02:50 PM
No . It has to be special for something .And with this format nobody guarantees that you'll have blockbuster matches .It's also intrigue that you can win a tournament with 2 defeats . It's just like it has to be for the end of the season

Nirjhor
11-25-2011, 03:00 PM
If current system changes, anybody could be the winner of WTF. Would it be good if Dolgopolov or Simon wins this tournament? IMO, no. So Round-Robin system is good for WTF. So a player has to play against at least three+ of top eight players. And during the whole season, other players who aren't in top 8 would try to be one of top 8 to play in WTF. It is interesting and competitive. :)

MaxPower
11-25-2011, 03:30 PM
Agree. To me WTF is the "playoffs" of the season. It's supposed to be do or die. Just like in all playoffs the favorites should be in danger to crash and burn. That's the charm of all playoffs and even cup formats like in the world cups/olympics and so on that are even more rare than WTF. It's do or die and there could be surprises and flops. That makes it exciting and special. A big fat flop or an unexpected winner can sometimes be way more entertaining than guaranteed meetings between #1-#8 that we have seen all season anyway.

I don't think Round Robin is horrible but if they want to keep it the system must change. Maybe make a win count as 3p and a loss winning 1 set give 1p.
Then simply most points reach the SF. Now a player can go through with 2 losses and worse set ratio because the one win is vs the right player. Winning sets must matter so player really fight always. Every set should count. And then even have game ratio as an additional tiebreaker so it gets costly to be humiliated too

Beat
11-25-2011, 03:33 PM
so far, GSMnadal is the only one who voted for option 2. enough said.

Certinfy
11-25-2011, 03:33 PM
I would absolutely love a tournament like this. Problem is 16 players doesn't make the tournament so 'elite', does it?

Orka_n
11-25-2011, 03:34 PM
Round Robin. But total sets won/lost should always count before H2H, no matter if it's between 2 or 3 players.

GSMnadal
11-25-2011, 03:37 PM
so far, GSMnadal is the only one who voted for option 2. enough said.

Yes, and not because I like the suggested format, but because I find the Round Robin thing a farce. Djokovic got spanked twice and he could still win this. No idea on how to improve it though...

Johnny Groove
11-25-2011, 04:24 PM
I think a 12 man knockout draw would be the best thing. Give byes to the top 4 seeds.

RR is shit. I used to think it was ok for TMC since it was top 8 and good for business, but I think the knockout format would be just as thrilling for the fans.

MachineGun
11-25-2011, 04:28 PM
They just should eliminate the H2H in the RR as the second criteria (after the match wins/lost) for a qualification to the semis.
Therefore I voted "other".

philosophicalarf
11-25-2011, 04:30 PM
Round robin creates too many absurdities with just 4 players in each group. To fix it, make it two groups of 5.

Also would make the "top10" more special, and the end of the season more interesting - normally top 5 spots are sealed up early in season, then 6 and 7 a few months back. Top10 qualifying for WTF would see a whole bunch of players nicely motivated these last few months.

MrExcel
11-25-2011, 04:38 PM
Just because of the results in your hypothetical draw, your idea is stupid as anyone who knows anything about tennis would say Djoko would have beaten Federer. So this whole thread is a waste of space.

The results weren't supposed to be a true reflection of what would have happened this week, they are just made up. I used existing WTF results where possible and for the rest just took the result of their most recent meeting. I agree Federer would be favourite to beat Djokovic this week :)

Start da Game
11-25-2011, 04:39 PM
let it remain a chicken shit tournament with round robin format......nobody cares, let it continue to exist in that dark stadium somewhere in the outskirts of london......

MrExcel
11-25-2011, 04:45 PM
If current system changes, anybody could be the winner of WTF. Would it be good if Dolgopolov or Simon wins this tournament? IMO, no. So Round-Robin system is good for WTF. So a player has to play against at least three+ of top eight players. And during the whole season, other players who aren't in top 8 would try to be one of top 8 to play in WTF. It is interesting and competitive. :)

If Dolgopolov or Simon could make their way through an elite draw of four of the best players of the year then perhaps they would deserve it? If Round robin is there just to get a top player to win a tournament they may as well just have Djokovic and Nadal playing the best of seven matches! I know I'm being facetious but you know what I mean.
And would you say that Federer-Fish was as interesting and competitive as it should be? Djokovic-Tipsarevic?

alter ego
11-25-2011, 04:49 PM
No. RR is a very good idea. It ensures that if there are 2 guys playing above everybody else they will meet in the final. In slams you have cases where the best players in the tournament play against each other before the final (e.g. Wimbledon 96 QF Krajicek vs Sampras, AO 2005 Federer vs Safin).

MrExcel
11-25-2011, 04:56 PM
No. RR is a very good idea. It ensures that if there are 2 guys playing above everybody else they will meet in the final. In slams you have cases where the best players in the tournament play against each other before the final (e.g. Wimbledon 96 QF Krajicek vs Sampras, AO 2005 Federer vs Safin).

Good point, one clear advantage as well as the fans getting a better chance to see their favourites

Poirot123
11-25-2011, 05:09 PM
Round robin creates too many absurdities with just 4 players in each group. To fix it, make it two groups of 5.

Also would make the "top10" more special, and the end of the season more interesting - normally top 5 spots are sealed up early in season, then 6 and 7 a few months back. Top10 qualifying for WTF would see a whole bunch of players nicely motivated these last few months.

I actually like the idea of the top 10 competing, with two groups of 5. If someone drops out injured, there are no alternates and everyone who hasn't played the drop out gets a W/O victory. That way finishing the year in the top 10 means something. Top 2 in each group progress to the SF.

Hopefully that'd keep the Nadal fans happier, as they'd be at least one mug in his group ranked 9th or 10th who he could beat (Almagro being the case this year).

MrExcel
11-25-2011, 05:16 PM
I actually like the idea of the top 10 competing, with two groups of 5. If someone drops out injured, there are no alternates and everyone who hasn't played the drop out gets a W/O victory. That way finishing the year in the top 10 means something. Top 2 in each group progress to the SF.

Hopefully that'd keep the Nadal fans happier, as they'd be at least one mug in his group ranked 9th or 10th who he could beat (Almagro being the case this year).

Interesting, no alternates would mean those sessions would not have a match taking place though, what would happen there when people have bought tickets for that session?

Downside would be with 2 qualifiers in a 5-man group there would be even more dead/meaningless matches than we have now.