Lindsay on the ATP RR format to be introduced in 2007 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Lindsay on the ATP RR format to be introduced in 2007

rofe
09-11-2006, 06:50 PM
She brings up an interesting point about match-fixing.


BALI, Indonesia -- Plans for a round-robin format in some men's tennis events could have unforeseen consequences, women's former world No. 1 Lindsay Davenport says.

Major ATP changes for 2007
ATP Tour
Major changes to the 2007 ATP Tour:

• Round-robin format to be used at some tournaments, instead of single-elimination.
• Some tourneys to start Sunday instead of Monday.
• Best-of-five sets to be replaced by best-of-three format at most tourneys.
• Minimum prize money to increase 10 percent.
• A multi-million dollar marketing fund will be established to better promote the tour and players.

The ATP, as part of sweeping changes aimed at making tournaments more attractive to fans, television, players and tournament directors, plans to play early rounds of tour events as round-robins to ensure that marquee players remain throughout the week.

Davenport said the idea, due to start next year, could lead to tactical play.

"There's [the potential for] a lot of fixing if your friend needs you to win or lose or whatever. A lot of things could happen. There are some kinks to be worked out for sure," the American said on Monday.

Players might also not compete so strongly if they knew they would not be eliminated with one defeat, Davenport said.

"That could happen, although in women's tennis I don't see it happening because everyone's so neurotic about always winning."

The ATP announced the change last month and said it would also abolish best-of-five-set matches at tour events next year and phase in plans for eight-day events, beginning on a Sunday instead of a Monday.

Davenport, who is in Bali to begin the defense of her title on Tuesday against Russian Galina Voskoboeva, has attracted speculation that she might soon retire by committing herself to play only one more tournament, next week's event in Beijing.

The 30-year-old Davenport, who reached the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open, said she had made no decision about the future.

"I don't know how it works," she said. "Every player I've talked to, it's been a different way to quit, how they've figured out that they don't want to do this any more. So I'm constantly looking at signs, and it hasn't happened yet. I always come back and I don't know what it will take.

"If I allow myself to think it's the last time somewhere it would be way too emotional for me. Like at last year's U.S. Open it most likely could have been my last one, but if I had thought about that while playing I would have been crying and a wreck. So I just try to focus on the tournament because I don't know what will happen in six months or a year.

"I've always envisioned that I would be playing a match and be like, 'I'm not having fun,' and fly home and just feel like this is not going to happen any more.

"Now I'm excited about Beijing because I've never been to China but after that I don't know. I would like to play Zurich if I'm feeling good, but we'll see. I don't even think it matters if I finish in the United States. I don't have visions of where it's going to be."

Davenport is seeded third at an event that has lost U.S. Open semifinalist Jelena Jankovic to injury but still includes five of the top 20. Twice former champion Svetlana Kuznetsova, who is undefeated in Bali, is the top seed, with Switzerland's Patty Schnyder seeded second. Recent Montreal champion Ana Ivanovic is seeded fourth.

Action Jackson
09-11-2006, 06:54 PM
Well it would be better if some of the guys and came out and said something, but most people know that there are going to be fixed matches in either systen and a lot of players will play dead so to speak, so they can go to the next tournament, when there isn't anything to play for.

rofe
09-11-2006, 06:56 PM
Well it would be better if some of the guys and came out and said something, but most people know that there are going to be fixed matches in either systen and a lot of players will play dead so to speak, so they can go to the next tournament, when there isn't anything to play for.

Yeah, I wish someone from the mens side would be as candid as Lindsay. Of course, she doesn't have any vested interest in the ATP.

Action Jackson
09-11-2006, 06:58 PM
Yeah, I wish someone from the mens side would be as candid as Lindsay. Of course, she doesn't have any vested interest in the ATP.

Tursunov said something, but it was scepticism about the format and nothing more.

rofe
09-11-2006, 07:00 PM
Tursunov said something, but it was scepticism about the format and nothing more.

Wasn't Gasquet opposed to it? He doesn't have the stature of Lindsay however to create any waves.

merce
09-11-2006, 07:12 PM
Love Lindsay :worship: she's not afraid to speak her mind.

Action Jackson
09-11-2006, 07:15 PM
Wasn't Gasquet opposed to it? He doesn't have the stature of Lindsay however to create any waves.

Gasquet was, but there have to be others opposed to it. Though most of these people are mercenaries and they are going to look after themselves for the best deal.

Corey Feldman
09-11-2006, 08:35 PM
Always knew women had more sense than us men.

cobalt60
09-11-2006, 09:39 PM
Always knew women had more sense than us men.
Good for you;)

Winston's Human
09-11-2006, 10:17 PM
Yeah, I wish someone from the mens side would be as candid as Lindsay. Of course, she doesn't have any vested interest in the ATP.

I think Lindsay is concerned that this bad idea will makes it way from the ATP to the WTA.

TennisAgenda
09-11-2006, 11:17 PM
Lindssay is correct this new round robin idea is stupid and against the principle of tennis. Tennis is an indvidual sport this round robin thing could be used for match fixing as Lindsay says. Its a very bad bad idea. The top players can stop this stupid idea if they spoke up about it.

rofe
09-11-2006, 11:23 PM
I think Lindsay is concerned that this bad idea will makes it way from the ATP to the WTA.

I was referring to the fact that Lindsay can say something like that without repercussions since she is really part of the WTA governing body.

Lee
09-11-2006, 11:25 PM
Yeah, I wish someone from the mens side would be as candid as Lindsay. Of course, she doesn't have any vested interest in the ATP.

Lindsay always speaks her mind about tennis. No matter it's ATP or WTA. She had many words with WTA officials before.

Billabong
09-11-2006, 11:25 PM
I totally agree with Lindsay:)

DDrago2
09-11-2006, 11:26 PM
This is all about trying to make life more difficult for Federer. Why don't they introduce the same changes to WTA?

R.Federer
09-11-2006, 11:30 PM
It is so disgraceful that the top men's players are succumbing to the money angle and letting the sport be ruined like this; with support from Federer, Nadal, Andre post retirement, Safin, etc. Etienne de Villain simply cannot be stopped

Paul Banks
09-11-2006, 11:34 PM
My biggest complain with the RR system (and weirdly I haven't seen people complain about it) is that tennis is no longer a "binary" sport (win / lose). It shouldn't matter if you win 6-0 6-0 or 7-6 in the third, with RR it does.

So basically you'll have players reaching the 1/4F because they won more games than their opponent. Absurd.

True, there is already tanking and match fixing right now, but the situation would be far worse with RR.

And it's going to confuse people. When you need a calculator to figure out which players will be in the next round, there is something wrong.

The format works well for the Masters because it's only 8 players, so RR makes perfect sense. However it's going to be ridiculous for 32 players.

Shrinking Violet
09-11-2006, 11:36 PM
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas - you go to the top players and say 'we want to keep you in tournaments even longer so you don't need to worry about getting knocked out by Mr 55 in the world so you say this is a good idea and everyone wins because we'll pay you more for it.'

It's stupid, ridiculous and I honestly don't understand why any player would think it was a good idea because they all had to break through at one point and surely this set-up would have made it harder for them. It's just idiotic and the fact that it's happening is laughable. Instead of worrying about having Federer, Nadal et al in the finals of EVERY tournament, why not spend the money marketing the sport and the other players that they are treating with such contempt.

Sofyaxo
09-11-2006, 11:54 PM
I really think a lot of the changes that the ATP wants to make are to get more money, and that is okay with players because prize money went up.

Adding RR to weekly play is just stupid, and it will be so hard to organize and figure out when you get to a slam or a masters event.

Though I don't know if any fans actually like the idea, and if there aren't fans, then there isn't money and they will stop.

Dusk Soldier
09-12-2006, 12:06 AM
Lindssay is correct this new round robin idea is stupid and against the principle of tennis. Tennis is an indvidual sport this round robin thing could be used for match fixing as Lindsay says. Its a very bad bad idea. The top players can stop this stupid idea if they spoke up about it.
That's not what she said at all. :rolleyes:

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2006, 12:45 AM
No surprise that Lindsay said these things considering she is probably one of the smarter players on either tour.

cmurray
09-12-2006, 12:54 AM
I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the new system. For a million different reasons.

1. This system only benefits the very top players. How many times are you going to see 2 different players beat Roger early on? There will be no more upsets.
2. It takes away from the spirit of the game. What I love about tennis is that it's do or die every time. This new rule is going to KILL that concept.
3. If they have more Sunday starts, how is a player going to play 2 tourneys back to back? If you're playing in a final on Sunday, you can't very well be playing an opening round in a different place on the same day. God, this is stupid.
4. GO LINDSAY

njnetswill
09-12-2006, 01:47 AM
Thank you Lindsay Now get some ATP friends of yours to speak up against RR as well. :)

pistolmarat
09-12-2006, 05:41 PM
must agree with Lindsay:worship:

cmurray
09-12-2006, 07:20 PM
If I recall propertly, Marat was AGAINST this whole idea. Which just goes to prove that you can be sexy AND intelligent.

Regenbogen
09-12-2006, 07:57 PM
My biggest complain with the RR system (and weirdly I haven't seen people complain about it) is that tennis is no longer a "binary" sport (win / lose). It shouldn't matter if you win 6-0 6-0 or 7-6 in the third, with RR it does.

So basically you'll have players reaching the 1/4F because they won more games than their opponent. Absurd.

True, there is already tanking and match fixing right now, but the situation would be far worse with RR.

And it's going to confuse people. When you need a calculator to figure out which players will be in the next round, there is something wrong.

The format works well for the Masters because it's only 8 players, so RR makes perfect sense. However it's going to be ridiculous for 32 players.
I hadn't really thought of that much :scared: Just another reason why this whole idea is completely idiotic :explode: Let's start a revolution :armed:

alfonsojose
09-12-2006, 08:06 PM
Lindsay :bowdown:

Fedex
09-12-2006, 08:14 PM
This idea is absurd and more players should speak out against it, like Lindsay has.

Action Jackson
09-12-2006, 08:51 PM
If I recall propertly, Marat was AGAINST this whole idea. Which just goes to prove that you can be sexy AND intelligent.

Marat is for it.

*julie*
09-12-2006, 09:39 PM
Does this De Villiers decide everything on his own?

I can't believe this guy just shows up, coming from his disney world, and just say "ok now we do this and that" and there is no reaction from the players.

Gasquet's reaction has no impact... The same with Davenport as she doesn't play in the ATP.

This is scary to see how much the players don't care... (or they care and agree with it... which is even worse).

Anyway, thanks to Lindsay... if only it could help to make the players react...

cmurray
09-12-2006, 10:06 PM
Marat is for it.

Then again, maybe not. :)

I thought for sure when De Villiers said he talked to Safin, Federer, Nadal, and Agassi that Fed, Rafa and Andre were for it. Didn't mention Marat, so I took that to mean that Marat was the lone voice of reason. My error, apparently.

Shrinking Violet
09-12-2006, 11:01 PM
Does this De Villiers decide everything on his own?

I can't believe this guy just shows up, coming from his disney world, and just say "ok now we do this and that" and there is no reaction from the players.

Gasquet's reaction has no impact... The same with Davenport as she doesn't play in the ATP.

This is scary to see how much the players don't care... (or they care and agree with it... which is even worse).

Anyway, thanks to Lindsay... if only it could help to make the players react...

Maybe they aren't allowed to come out publically and slate it? I read some of the lower ranked American guys and they were like 'yeah, we need to think about the TV and the sport' so maybe that angle has been played up?

I don't know - I just can't understand why the players would like the idea. It can't all be about the money for guys who are already millionaires, surely? I mean you would think that the younger guys who have just struggled up in the current system, and the guys who bounce around from about 15-40 in their careers would all have issues and that's not even looking at the guys further down the rankings. I can maybe understand why guys like Ljubicic, Fed, Nadal et al would like to be able to practically gurantee their appearances in the latter stages of events, but I cannot understand how the other guys would think it was a great idea.

Via
09-13-2006, 02:49 AM
lindsay! :worship:

the men should be ashamed of themselves for not having said anything nearly as sensible. then again, like julie said, maybe they really agree with the idea. scary scatterbrains.

sanpo
09-17-2006, 02:48 PM
is there even anyway to email atp about this? I mean if the players can't speak up for themselves maybe we can? This is a longshot though, but at least some effort could be done here and we wouldn't know.

I guess it would also be a great idea to email:
- SI Jon Wertheim about this, since his blog could ring up some publicity and awareness on this issue (or was there a response from him already?)
- Ask Dima for his opinion, for publicity, and for an opinion from someone in the ATP as well (though ATP boards would probably censor it anyway)
- Or maybe even Ljubicic? Since he's president of the tennis union.. :shrug:

I don't know I just don't want this to happen. It wouldn't just be bad for all the players but it would fuck up the tennis we have loved as well. :mad:

jenanun
09-17-2006, 02:57 PM
and not surprisingly, federer and nadal like the idea....

so we could expect all finals will be federer vs nadal.......

Action Jackson
09-17-2006, 03:08 PM
is there even anyway to email atp about this? I mean if the players can't speak up for themselves maybe we can? This is a longshot though, but at least some effort could be done here and we wouldn't know.

I guess it would also be a great idea to email:
- SI Jon Wertheim about this, since his blog could ring up some publicity and awareness on this issue (or was there a response from him already?)
- Ask Dima for his opinion, for publicity, and for an opinion from someone in the ATP as well (though ATP boards would probably censor it anyway)
- Or maybe even Ljubicic? Since he's president of the tennis union.. :shrug:

I don't know I just don't want this to happen. It wouldn't just be bad for all the players but it would fuck up the tennis we have loved as well. :mad:

Ljubo thinks it's a good idea. Worthless believes there should be 3 sets in Slams, not someone to be taken seriously.


Tursunov is cautiously sceptical:

Q. Have you been briefed on the proposed round robin system for next year?

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: Yes.

Q. What are your views on that?

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: It never hurts to try it. We can try it. First of all, I think the main issue is how the fans respond to it. If it increases the interest in tennis, then I think we should go along with that.
At the end of the day, fans are the ones paying our bills. If they're enjoying the format, the players will adapt eventually. The players that are having problems with challenge reviews, with tiebreaks in the fifth set, a lot of things.

But eventually, if that's the rule, then players have to abide by it. As much whining as we'll go through, I think the end result is going to depend on how the reaction from the fans is going to be.

Q. A lot more matches to be played over eight days. Etienne threw out the possibility of a super tiebreak third set. How do you think the singles players will react to that?

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: I think that's probably going to be that change is going to be probably much harder to slide by the singles players than the round robin. I think these are all just ideas. They're not really I don't think they're going to start playing a super set tiebreak all of a sudden.
I think if they change to round robin it is going to be good enough and it's going to be a positive review, then they might not even go along with that super tiebreak. I don't know. I mean, I think we have to take it one step at a time. If we start doing a bunch of changes right away, we're not really sure what has been having positive feedback and negative feedback.
Super set tiebreak, I haven't really heard too much about it. I know round robin has been talked about a lot.

sanpo
09-17-2006, 04:20 PM
Thanks for the supplement, GeorgeWHitler.

I just don't know how they'll make it more appealing though, especially among fans that are mostly (TV fans). While there may be more matches between top players to air, there would also be an equal addition in the number of "clutter" matches. And I've heard some tv networks being adamant in providing tennis coverage since they either ended up too late, or ended up unexpectedly quick.

I guess we really have to wait and see how it goes, and then judge accordingly. After all, majority despised the idea of on-court challenging before, but it turned out to be quite effective. :shrugs:

Action Jackson
09-17-2006, 07:42 PM
Thanks for the supplement, GeorgeWHitler.

I just don't know how they'll make it more appealing though, especially among fans that are mostly (TV fans). While there may be more matches between top players to air, there would also be an equal addition in the number of "clutter" matches. And I've heard some tv networks being adamant in providing tennis coverage since they either ended up too late, or ended up unexpectedly quick.

I guess we really have to wait and see how it goes, and then judge accordingly. After all, majority despised the idea of on-court challenging before, but it turned out to be quite effective. :shrugs:

It's a different thing, it depends on who is going to benefit more, well it's obvious who will benefit more, but I could go on about this, there are important issues in tennis and these are cosmetic changes that reflect that.

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 08:03 PM
That's all ridiculous. That de Villiers should be beaten to death.

DrJules
09-17-2006, 08:13 PM
I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the new system. For a million different reasons.

1. This system only benefits the very top players. How many times are you going to see 2 different players beat Roger early on? There will be no more upsets.
2. It takes away from the spirit of the game. What I love about tennis is that it's do or die every time. This new rule is going to KILL that concept.
3. If they have more Sunday starts, how is a player going to play 2 tourneys back to back? If you're playing in a final on Sunday, you can't very well be playing an opening round in a different place on the same day. God, this is stupid.
4. GO LINDSAY

If the changes do not effect the grand slams or the master series then it will have limited effects on the top players whose focus is on the 4 grand slams and 9 master series. For Federer and Nadal they nearly always win/reach final of their optionals.

DrJules
09-17-2006, 08:16 PM
That's all ridiculous. That de Villiers should be beaten to death.

Or an ATP re-make of "The Wicker Man" :lol: :lol: :lol: with de Villiers in the obvious role.

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 08:16 PM
The main problem with this is that some idiot is trying to change a game that has centennial tradition. I say again: DE VILLIERS SHOULD BE BEATEN TO DEATH!

GlennMirnyi
09-17-2006, 08:17 PM
This is a mockery of the sport. I have no other thing to say. They are ruining tennis.

acharlesmobile
09-17-2006, 10:50 PM
Well it als omeans that anyone in Federer's pool doesn't have to worry too much about an auto-loss because they can continue on even if they lsoe to Federer. Or how does this system work again? Safin might agree with it because i think he's tired of so many early round exits and auto-losses from Gonzo. Either way, i'm against it. DE VILLIERS SHOULD BE BEATEN TO DEATH!