Group A scenarios [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Group A scenarios

Apemant
11-24-2009, 10:36 PM
Federer 2 wins, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games
Murray 1 win, 3-3 sets, 25-26 games
Del Potro 1 win, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games
Verdasco 0 wins, 2-4 sets, 28-33 games


All 4 players can still qualify. :devil: :worship:


A. Federer beats Del Potro. Federer tops the group.

A.1. If Murray beats Verdasco, then he qualifies as 2nd.

A.2. If Murray loses to Verdasco in 2, then Verdasco qualifies. :devil:

A.3. If Murray loses to Verdasco in 3:
A.3.1. If Del Potro loses to Federer in 2, then Verdasco qualifies. :devil:
A.3.2. If Del Potro loses to Federer in 3, then the games ratio decides.


B. Federer loses to Del Potro. Verdasco is out.

B.1. If Murray loses to Verdasco, then Del Potro, Federer qualify. (in that order)

B.2. If Murray beats Verdasco in 2, then Murray, Del Potro qualify.

B.3. If Murray beats Verdasco in 3:
B.3.1. If Federer loses to Del Potro in 2, then Del Potro, Murray qualify.
B.3.2. If Federer loses to Del Potro in 3, then the games ratio decides.


Any errors? :angel:

A.3.2 and B.3.2 coming later. Stay tuned... LOL

dylan24
11-24-2009, 10:38 PM
thats bullshit.
if fed and murray are both 2-1
and fed has beaten murray, andy can still advance?

Apemant
11-24-2009, 10:40 PM
thats bullshit.
if fed and murray are both 2-1
and fed has beaten murray, andy can still advance?

Yes, on the account of better set win/loss ratio.

Ad Wim
11-24-2009, 10:42 PM
thats bullshit.
if fed and murray are both 2-1
and fed has beaten murray, andy can still advance?

Ofcourse, Andy has two wins then, won't he? And Potro and Verdasco none.

philosophicalarf
11-24-2009, 10:43 PM
thats bullshit.
if fed and murray are both 2-1
and fed has beaten murray, andy can still advance?

h2h only splits a two-way tie on wins, not a three-way.

dylan24
11-24-2009, 10:45 PM
h2h only splits a two-way tie on wins, not a three-way.

yeah i forgot.
i can't think today

DorianGray7
11-24-2009, 10:49 PM
What about group B.

Is there any possible way for Djokovic to not qualify? god dammit...

Federer vs. Djokovic is the final, GET VENGENCE for Basel Roger. Shred that punk-ass serbian!

DrJules
11-24-2009, 10:49 PM
No wonder the round robbin idea never became popular.

Ad Wim
11-24-2009, 10:52 PM
No wonder the round robbin idea never became popular.

On the contrary, this calculating is great!

DorianGray7
11-24-2009, 10:52 PM
What About Group B

Someone Tell Us.

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:00 PM
What About Group B

Someone Tell Us.

It is too early for group B. :devil: Too many combinations. Wait till tomorrow.

There are only 2 very different types of scenarios: one is like in group A, where all kind of weird things are possible. But, consider for example, in group B:

If Nole beats Soderling, and Davy beats Rafa - then it is *extremely* simple: Nole is 1st, Rafa is out - and the winner of Soderling-Davy is 2nd. Nole-Rafa is a 'dead match'.

Also, if Soderling beats Nole, and Rafa beats Davy - again, very simple: Soderling is 1st, Davy is out, and the winner of Nole-Rafa is 2nd. (Soderling-Davy is a 'dead match')

So there are 2 really simple sets of scenarios. Complications occur in the other 2 sets: if Nole beats Soderling, and Rafa beats Davy OR if Soderling beats Nole, and Davy beats Rafa.

Hazem
11-24-2009, 11:06 PM
A.3.1. If Del Potro loses to Federer in 2, then Verdasco qualifies

Verdasco must beat Murray with game difference more than 2 games to qualify in this scenario.

Hazem
11-24-2009, 11:27 PM
B.2. If Murray beats Verdasco in 2, then Murray, Del Potro qualify.


This happens only if Del Potro beats Federer in 2.
But If Del Potro beats Federer in 3 , then Murray qualifies & Federer mostly qualifies by game difference ... because Delpotro in this case needs to beat Federer with a difference of 8 games & this is very difficult to occur in a three-set match.

Voo de Mar
11-24-2009, 11:32 PM
In my opinion the best Masters solution was in New York in 1986 (but it was Masters '85 actually). 16 players in the draw, the winner of the tournament had to win 4 matches in a row with "the best of 5" final :yeah:

I don't like RR system because usually the tournament wins a player with one defeat. Sometimes it's a tank like last year when Djokovic didn't even try in the 3rd set against Tsonga because he had already been 1st in his group.

philosophicalarf
11-24-2009, 11:33 PM
Verdasco must beat Murray with game difference more than 2 games to qualify in this scenario.

Not just game difference though, it's games won % :-)) Could be some odd scenarios, eg: Fed d. DelPot 6-3 6-3 would leave the group like this before the Murray/Verdasco match ....


Player-Wins-set%-(games)

Federer 3 75% (44/71 62%)
Murray 1 50% (25/51 49%)
DelPot 1 38% (33/76 43%) <----out on sets rule
Verdy 0 33% (26/60 43%)


Murray then qualifies with a win obviously, and Verdasco with a 2-0 win on the sets rule. If Verdasco wins 2-1, he splits with Murray on games. So....


Verdasco wins 64 46 64 - Murray on 48.15% games, Verdy 46.67%
Verdasco wins 63 36 63 - Murray on 47.44% games, Verdy 47.13%
Verdasco wins 62 26 62 - Murray on 46.67% games, Verdy 47.62%


Brutal narrow margins for whoever loses in this sort of result :-)

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:34 PM
Federer 2 wins, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games
Murray 1 win, 3-3 sets, 25-26 games (-1)
Del Potro 1 win, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games (-4)
Verdasco 0 wins, 2-4 sets, 28-33 games (-5)

A.3.2. Del Potro loses to Federer in 3, Murray loses to Verdasco in 3.

All 3 of them then have 1 wins, and 4-5 sets, so it comes down to games won. For simplicity, we are going to work with differentials, even if it's not completely valid, because *ratios* are what matters. Two identical differentials aren't neccessarily the same ratios. (*)

First, lets see the 'extremes' of a 3 set match: one is 6-0 6-7 6-0 (18-7, +11) and the other is 7-6 0-6 7-6 (14-18, -4). In other words, in losing your 3-set match, you can 'at best' even improve your games differential (by +4, however unlikely it is), while at worst you can lower your differential by -11. 'Common' matches probably fall somewhere between -1 and -6.

It's obvious that in this scenario Del Potro has least chances of them all; he can at the very best improve his ratio to 0 (if he loses to Federer 6-7 6-0 6-7 which is next to impossible) and even that wouldn't neccessarily earn him a SF spot, as Verdasco could still beat Murray with +6 (which is far more likely than the above scenario) and have a better ratio than Del Potro.

And if Del Potro loses by a 'common' scoreline e.g. -2 differential, he will be at -6, which means that he cant possibly be better than both Verdasco and Murray. In fact, the 'best' possible scenario for Del Potro is that Verdasco beats Murray with a +2 differential (e.g. 6-4 4-6 6-4), so they would both be at -3. Even then, he would still need to actually IMPROVE his differential while actually LOSING the match to Federer. So he would need a loss such as 6-7 6-3 6-7, which is itself very unlikely, and even then it depends on the best possible scenario (for him) in the Verdasco-Murray match.

Therefore, Del Potro has extremely low chances. Of the other two, Verdasco would need to beat Murray by at least +2 games differential; then they would both be at -3, but since Verdasco has more games won, his ratio would have been greater and he would qualify.

So, all the above stuff really comes down to this:

If Verdasco beats Murray by a scoreline such as 6-4 4-6 6-4, he is virtually assured to book a spot in the SF, unless something really weird happens in Federer-Del Potro match. So he has the best chances in this particular scenario.


(*) one small note concerning ratios and differentials. If two differentials are equal, then, if they are NEGATIVE (e.g. -2) then the differential with more games won has better ratio. Therefore, since Verdasco has more wins, if his and Murray's differentials are both -3, Verdasco goes to SF.

However, if differentials are POSITIVE (e.g. +2) then the differential with fewer games loss is better. Easy to show:

30-40 is better than 20-30, even though both are -10:
30-40 is the ratio of 42.86%, 20-30 is the ratio of 40.0%

But,

30-20 is better than 40-30, even if both are +10:
30-20 is the ratio of 60%, 40-30 is the ratio of 57.14%

(percentage of total games won)

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:37 PM
Verdasco must beat Murray with game difference more than 2 games to qualify in this scenario.

No, he doesn't. Because Verdasco and Murray then BOTH have better sets ratio than Del Potro; so there is no 3-way rule, but Verdasco qualifies because his H2H with Murray then applies. So games don't matter.

Nice try, though. :devil:

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:39 PM
This happens only if Del Potro beats Federer in 2.
But If Del Potro beats Federer in 3 , then Murray qualifies & Federer mostly qualifies by game difference ... because Delpotro in this case needs to beat Federer with a difference of 8 games & this is very difficult to occur in a three-set match.

All wrong, all wrong. If Del Potro beats Federer in 3, and Murray beats Verdasco in 2 - then Murray has better sets ratio than both Federer and Del Potro. Therefore, there is no 3-way rule for games, because Murray is automatically 1st, and Federer-Del Potro are resolved on the account of their H2H, which means Del Potro qualifies.

Games only matter if there are 3-way in SETS won. As soon as there is a superior (or inferior) player within the 3, H2H applies.

Yamor
11-24-2009, 11:40 PM
This happens only if Del Potro beats Federer in 2.
But If Del Potro beats Federer in 3 , then Murray qualifies & Federer mostly qualifies by game difference ... because Delpotro in this case needs to beat Federer with a difference of 8 games & this is very difficult to occur in a three-set match.

Wrong. It will not come down to games, sets will decide it, with Murray having the best record, and then Federer and Del Potro, because they'd have the same sets record, would be decided by head-to-head, which del Potro wins.

The OP is 100% correct. All in all, when taking sets into account, there are 16 possibilities, 4 of which don't need tie-breakers, 4 which use head-to-head to decide top and second top, 6 which use sets (either completely, or in conjunction with head-to-head, like the above case), and 2 which use games.

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:51 PM
Federer 2 wins, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games (+10)
Murray 1 win, 3-3 sets, 25-26 games (-1)
Del Potro 1 win, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games (-4)
Verdasco 0 wins, 2-4 sets, 28-33 games (-5)


B.3.2. Federer loses to Del Potro in 3, Murray beats Verdasco in 3.

In this scenario, two of the three of them qualify; only the one with the worst games ratio falls out.

From Federer's perspective, he only needs to assure that he doesn't lose to Del Potro by a scoreline worse than -6. So, a loss such as 2-6 6-4 2-6 is still okay. And he is through. Therefore, he has high chances.

Murray needs to assure he beats Verdasco with a differential which is at worst 2 points lower than the Del Potro-Federer differential. For example, if Del Potro beats Federer 6-2 4-6 6-2, Murray only needs to beat Verdasco 6-3 4-6 6-3, and he is still better than Del Potro.

Therefore, Murray and Federer have high chances to qualify, while Del Potro has low chances, just like in the previous 3-way scenario. Here they are marginally higher than in the previous one, but still very low.

Apemant
11-24-2009, 11:53 PM
The OP is 100% correct. All in all, when taking sets into account, there are 16 possibilities, 4 of which don't need tie-breakers, 4 which use head-to-head to decide top and second top, 6 which use sets (either completely, or in conjunction with head-to-head, like the above case), and 2 which use games.

Yes, I only grouped them like this for at least SOME kind of brevity. ;) But now I wonder, if I listed them all verbatim, would they be more readable?

FiBeR
11-24-2009, 11:58 PM
GAME DIFFERENCE SITUATION:

If Del Potro beats Federer 2-1 and Murray beats Verdasco 2-1:

Murray -1 in Games W-L
Del Potro -4 in Games W-L
(H2H Between the two = Murray)

Del Potro needs to win something like 6-3 6-7 6-4 (against federer)
Murray needs to win something like 1-6 6-4 6-3 (against Verdasco) or 2-6 , 6-4, 6-4.. anyway verdasco must doublebreak at least on the set he wins against murray and del potro must lose it closely in a tie break and have at least 1 break in each set that the argentine wins to stand with a chance of being #2 in Game Difference. :hatoff:

FiBeR
11-25-2009, 12:03 AM
IF Del Potro wins 2-0 and Murray wins 2-1

Del Potro qualifies first and Murray second. :hatoff:

Apemant
11-25-2009, 12:10 AM
IF Del Potro wins 2-0 and Murray wins 2-1

Del Potro qualifies first and Murray second. :hatoff:

That is scenario, B.3.1. if you please. :angel:

Hazem
11-25-2009, 12:13 AM
Not just game difference though, it's games won % :-))

Yeah !!!
I apologize for misunderstanding :confused:

Hazem
11-25-2009, 12:18 AM
GAME DIFFERENCE SITUATION:

If Del Potro beats Federer 2-1 and Murray beats Verdasco 2-1:

Murray -1 in Games W-L
Del Potro -4 in Games W-L
(H2H Between the two = Murray)

Del Potro needs to win something like 6-3 6-7 6-4 (against federer)
Murray needs to win something like 1-6 6-4 6-3 (against Verdasco) or 2-6 , 6-4, 6-4.. anyway verdasco must doublebreak at least on the set he wins against murray and del potro must lose it closely in a tie break and have at least 1 break in each set that the argentine wins to stand with a chance of being #2 in Game Difference. :hatoff:

In this case the three players ( Federer, Del Potro & Murray ) tie & H2H rule is applied in two-players-ties only , Isn't it or I misunderstand again ? :eek:

Apemant
11-25-2009, 12:26 AM
In this case the three players ( Federer, Del Potro & Murray ) tie & H2H rule is applied in two-players-ties only , Isn't it or I misunderstand again ? :eek:

I'm not sure myself... because two of them three must qualify. So how it is done? Most likely, get a highest games ratio between the three - he is the 1st - then break the other two by H2H. But I might be wrong. Maybe they pick two better games ratios, irrespective of H2H. :shrug:

philosophicalarf
11-25-2009, 12:32 AM
If I'm reading the rules right, it's the two better games won %s. The h2h only comes into play in that scenario if you had two of the three with identical games won %s, which is extremely unlikely.

Hazem
11-25-2009, 12:34 AM
I'm not sure myself... because two of them three must qualify. So how it is done? Most likely, get a highest games ratio between the three - he is the 1st - then break the other two by H2H. But I might be wrong. Maybe they pick two better games ratios, irrespective of H2H. :shrug:

If they pick one of the three by game ratio , why don't they get off the lowest game ratio of the three players & the higher two qulaify together ?

Apemant
11-25-2009, 12:40 AM
If I'm reading the rules right, it's the two better games won %s. The h2h only comes into play in that scenario if you had two of the three with identical games won %s, which is extremely unlikely.

If they pick one of the three by game ratio , why don't they get off the lowest game ratio of the three players & the higher two qulaify together ?

A sensible approach... I agree. Two best games ratios, then. Unless the rules say otherwise and I can't be bothered to read them again, LOL.

Deivid23
11-25-2009, 12:47 AM
It´s a pity Verdasco and Murray can´t have the same total W/L games ratio in any case even if Fed wins in 3 and Verdasco wins it in 3 as well. It would be funny as hell to see how "ATP shall make a determination if ties still exist after the above procedures" :lol:

Apemant
11-25-2009, 12:54 AM
It´s a pity Verdasco and Murray can´t have the same total W/L games ratio in any case even if Fed wins in 3 and Verdasco wins it in 3 as well. It would be funny as hell to see how "ATP shall make a determination if ties still exist after the above procedures" :lol:

No no, that would only happen if ALL THREE players had the *same* games ratio. Not just two of them. If two of them have the same ratio, and the third has better (or worse, doesn't matter) then the tie is broken by the H2H.

The likelihood of 3 players having the exact same games ratio is extremely low though. Since season finale occurs only once a year, it is unlikely we will see such a scenario in our lifetimes. :angel:

Deivid23
11-25-2009, 01:01 AM
No no, that would only happen if ALL THREE players had the *same* games ratio. Not just two of them. If two of them have the same ratio, and the third has better (or worse, doesn't matter) then the tie is broken by the H2H.

The likelihood of 3 players having the exact same games ratio is extremely low though. Since season finale occurs only once a year, it is unlikely we will see such a scenario in our lifetimes. :angel:

yes, yes, I know, tit. But Murray and Verdasco cannot have the same WL games ratio, Del Potro might have it with both of them as the games won and lost by him in MD3 are independent of the others, therefore that scenario in which ATP shall make the final determination can´t happen.

Nando_L
11-25-2009, 01:38 AM
B. Federer loses to Del Potro. Verdasco is out.

B.1. If Murray loses to Verdasco, then Del Potro, Federer qualify. (in that order)

B.2. If Murray beats Verdasco in 2, then Murray, Del Potro qualify

Murray 2-0 Verdasco and Del Potro 2-1 Federer qualifies Murray/Del Potro?

swisht4u
11-25-2009, 05:04 AM
Murray 2-0 Verdasco and Del Potro 2-1 Federer qualifies Murray/Del Potro?

Nope.
Andy and (Fed or Potro on game ratio).

Yamor
11-25-2009, 07:37 AM
Nope, Murray and Del Potro on head-to-head with Federer.

Why do people argue when they have no idea how to apply the ATP rules? I'll say for the second time: the OP is 100% correct, and if you think he's wrong, go back and have a look at the rulebook!

Apemant
11-25-2009, 07:58 AM
yes, yes, I know, tit. But Murray and Verdasco cannot have the same WL games ratio, Del Potro might have it with both of them as the games won and lost by him in MD3 are independent of the others, therefore that scenario in which ATP shall make the final determination can´t happen.

D'oh, sorry. :o It wasn't hard to figure out what you meant, LOL, I guess I'm just too quick to assume someone didn't understand something. :ignore:

Apemant
11-25-2009, 08:25 AM
The most likely scenario which would mean Games Won being used

Murray beats Verdasco in 3
Del Potro beats Federe in 3

THEN they would need percent of Games Won

What the ATP do is not Rank 1,2,3.

They Rank 1 and then split 2 and using H2H

So if Murray wins in the afternoon, a heavy 3 set defeat for Federer
would mean Federer and Del Potro qualify !!!!

Is this verified? That they indeed check the BEST games ratio, and then break the other two by H2H, instead of just picking 2 best games ratios? I had my doubts but I wasn't sure...

tkr
11-25-2009, 09:11 AM
This is why RR with 4 players (teams in ither sports) is terrible...the 3x 2-1 record and 1x 0-3 and out is out of date. Instead of making players think tactically about winning a match(conserving power/strength etc) it forces player to think about making another break at 5-0 in third...

Garson007
11-25-2009, 09:16 AM
This is why RR with 4 players (teams in ither sports) is terrible...the 3x 2-1 record and 1x 0-3 and out is out of date. Instead of making players think tactically about winning a match(conserving power/strength etc) it forces player to think about making another break at 5-0 in third...
The fact that they are in that situation is down to their own doing. :shrug:

duong
11-25-2009, 09:31 AM
The most likely scenario which would mean Games Won being used

Murray beats Verdasco in 3
Del Potro beats Federe in 3

THEN they would need percent of Games Won

What the ATP do is not Rank 1,2,3.

They Rank 1st and then split 2nd and 3rd using H2H

Apemant is right : the rulebook doesn't give any definitive solution about that,

as the rule (iv) says "if (i) or (ii) or (iii) produce one superior player or one inferior player, and the two remaining are tied, the tie between those two players shall be broken by H2H record" :

I think like Apemant and Philosophicalarf that it's more simple than that :

if there's a perfect set-ratio equality between the three of them, they just calculate the two best ones by game-ratio and they both qualify, the rule (iv) doesn't apply in that case and there's no need to go back to a H2H between two players.

avocadoe
11-25-2009, 10:13 AM
where are the rules? :) :)

swisht4u
11-25-2009, 10:17 AM
All interesting.

I figure the rulebook isn't online or a link would have been posted.

Where do you get the rulebook at?

Turquoise
11-25-2009, 10:45 AM
where are the rules? :) :)


You can find them here. Click on the pdf file.

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/About/Rules.aspx

duong
11-25-2009, 11:22 AM
The OP is 100% right (well, at least if the rulebook's precise writing can be fully trusted :rolleyes: ),

but as Murray and Verdasco will play first ( http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/Schedule/Schedule-Landing.aspx ),

I thought it was better to give another presentation of that post considering Murray-Verdasco's result first.

Also I included some more notes about games ratios/differences (actually games differences and ratios nearly always give the same results for the kind of situations we meet, especially when the game differences is small it always gives the same)

1. Murray beats Verdasco in 2 : Murray is qualified, Verdasco out,

the winner of Fed-JMDP is the second qualifier

(Fed being first if he wins, JMDP being second to Murray if he wins)

1a. Fed beats JMDP : Fed is 1st, Murray 2nd
1b. JMDP beats Fed : Murray is 1st, JMDP second

2. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets and wins 4 more games than Verdasco (for instance 6/4 4/6 6/2) : Murray is qualified, Verdasco out,

JMDP has to beat Fed in 2 sets to qualify and eliminate Federer (in that case, Murray is first of the group, JMDP is 2nd)

... or in 3 sets with 8 games difference, which is huge :lol: (for instance 6/1 6/7 6/2)

Fed is first of the group if he wins, or if he loses in 3 sets by no more than 6 games difference -for instance not worse than 6/3 6/7 6/2

3. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets but doesn't win more than 3 games more than Verdasco (for instance 6/3 3/6 6/3) :

Verdasco is out,

Murray is not completely qualified as he can still fear a victory by JMDP in 3 sets with a big game difference for JMDP (the worst case for Murray being a win by JMDP by 7 games difference, for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2)

JMDP has to win in 2 sets or 3 sets with a big game difference,

Federer has to win one set and ensure that he doesn't lose by not more than 7 games (for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2 would be enough for him ... even to finish number 1 of the group) ,

4. Verdasco beats Murray in 2 sets : Murray is out, Federer is qualified

JMDP has to beat Fed to qualify and eliminate Verdasco (and JMDP would be first in that case)

5. Verdasco beats Murray in 3 sets with at least two games difference (for instance 6/4 4/6 6/4) : Murray is out, Federer is qualified,

JMDP qualifies and eliminates Verdasco if he wins ... or if he loses in 3 sets but gets at least 2 more games than Federer, which is very hard (for instance 6/4 0/6 6/4 or 7/6 2/6 7/6)

Else Verdasco goes to SF with Federer

6. Verdasco beats Murray in 3 sets with only one game difference or not more games than Murray : Verdasco is out, Federer is qualified,

JMDP qualifies and eliminates Murray if he wins ... or if he loses in 3 sets but gets a lot more games than Federer, even more than 2 :rolleyes:

Else Murray is the second to Federer

I think I did it approximately :rolleyes:

philosophicalarf
11-25-2009, 12:50 PM
The OP is 100% right (well, at least if the rulebook's precise writing can be fully trusted :rolleyes: ),


Yes, it is written in the manner of "We know what we mean, but we didn't think about it enough to word it entirely clearly". Taking it literally, I agree with you. Who knows what the ATP would do though......

Collective
11-25-2009, 01:15 PM
This thread perfectly illustrates why round robin sucks and should be eliminated from tennis.

Denaon
11-25-2009, 02:34 PM
:eek: Nice work to those that calculated the scenarios :yeah:
You've been really helpful to me :p
I expect (hope really) this to be simple...Verdasco and Del Potro winning...and all the calculations to the trashcan :rocker:

Apemant
11-26-2009, 08:21 AM
The Only Possible tie on Exact Games is Del Potro and Murray
Murray wins by 75 36 75
Del Potro wins 63 36 62


In that case the table would be

Federer 2-1, 5-4, 43-37
Murray 2-1, 5-4, 42-42
Del Potro 2-1, 5-4, 42-42

Which means Federer would be 1st, and Murray 2nd due to H2H. This would be a perfect example of a 3-way sets won ratio tie, which then yields one 'superior' player in the games won ratio (Federer), so the other two are broken by their H2H. But if ALL THREE players have different games ratio, then they (we assume) just pick the best 2, and the last one is out.

In fact, it has to be like that, because the rulebook says 'one superior OR one inferior'. And if all three are different, then there is both one superior and one inferior. So it would be pointless to pick either of them to resolve the other two by their H2H. It makes much more sense just to sort them according to the criterion which we are looking at. Since they are 3-way in matches won ratio, and 3-way in sets won ratio - it only makes sense to simply order them by their games won ratio, since they are all different.

Hope this makes sense.

BTW, Murray could as well win like 64 36 64, his games ratio would remain the same: 40-40, which is exactly 50% games won, just as 42-42 is exactly 50%. Or Del Potro could win 63 46 63, 43-43 is still exactly 50%.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 08:36 AM
But check out this further madness, LOL.

Murray d. Verdasco by 64 46 75
Del Potro d. Federer 63 36 63

Federer 2-1, 5-4, 44-37
Murray 2-1, 5-4, 41-42
Del Potro 2-1, 5-4, 42-43

Both Murray and Del Potro have the same differential in this scenario (-1), however, they are NOT tied. Murray is 41 of 83 = 49.3976%, while Del Potro is 42 of 85 = 49.4118%

Therefore, Del Potro has a better games won ratio, and he advances along with Federer.

HOWEVER, if

Murray d. Verdasco by 62 46 75
Del Potro d. Federer 63 36 61

Federer 2-1, 5-4, 42-37
Murray 2-1, 5-4, 41-40
Del Potro 2-1, 5-4, 42-41

Now both Murray and Del Potro have the same differential (+1), BUT, Murray is 41 of 81 = 50.6173%, while Del Potro is 42 of 83 = 50.6024%, which means that now Murray has a better games won ratio and he advances behind Federer!

Isn't math beautiful? :haha:

alter ego
11-26-2009, 09:24 AM
I have re read the rulebook

d) If three (3) players are tied, then:
i) If three (3) players each have one win, a player having played less than all
three (3) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to
the single elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the two
(2) players tied with 1-2 records; or
ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or
iii) Highest percentage of games won.
iv) If (i), (ii) or (iii) produce one (1) superior player (first place), or one (1) inferior player (third place), and the two (2) remaining players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken by head-to-head record.



The rules are incredible stupid. If Muarry beats Verdasco by 2 sets to love he is guranteed a semifinal spot even though he will have 2-1 win/lost ratio. While Fed, who now has a 2-0 win/lost record, has to win his match if he wants to go through. Why ? Because Fed beat Verdasco in 3 sets and Murray will have beaten him in 2. It's ludicrous. If 3 mugs are tied, why take into account thier results against a 4th player to breake the tie ?
The only think that should count are the sets and games percentage between the 3 mugs. If you don't do this then 1 of the mugs will have a schedule advantage.

duong
11-26-2009, 09:47 AM
If you take the Champions League Football they use the head to head between the three teams

That makes more sense

As said above, they should just Ignore results against Verdasco and take the games
Won/Lost against each other

it's also like that in nearly all international competitions of other sports ... except volley-ball who has the most stupid rules of all (volley-ball Federation often looks quite stupid to say the truth :rolleyes: ).

Also I think using ratios instead of differences is really stupid : it changes nothing usually, and it makes things much more complicated to understand for everybody.

And I really don't see the advantage of using ratios, except that you have less equalities : especially if you use overall ratios with all players, it's really stupid as what you can see generally is that to separate the best players/teams, the scores against the worst teams take bigger importance with ratios, that's what we can see always in volley-ball especially (the most stupid of all, I told you).

Yes, I speak of other sports since I'm used to making these calculations for other sports, crazy calculator :rolleyes: :haha:

David Kenzie
11-26-2009, 10:19 AM
it's also like that in nearly all international competitions of other sports ... except volley-ball who has the most stupid rules of all (volley-ball Federation often looks quite stupid to say the truth :rolleyes: ).

Also I think using ratios instead of differences is really stupid : it changes nothing usually, and it makes things much more complicated to understand for everybody.

And I really don't see the advantage of using ratios, except that you have less equalities : especially if you use overall ratios with all players, it's really stupid as what you can see generally is that to separate the best players/teams, the scores against the worst teams take bigger importance with ratios, that's what we can see always in volley-ball especially (the most stupid of all, I told you).

Yes, I speak of other sports since I'm used to making these calculations for other sports, crazy calculator :rolleyes: :haha:

I believe the reason to use percentage and not difference is because of retirements during a match. Say your opponent retires when you are up 6-3 2-0, if they used difference, your set difference would be only +1 whereas with percentage it is 100%.
Also they have to take into account players not playing 3 matches due to injury, and alternates wich means that percentage is better than difference.

duong
11-26-2009, 11:38 AM
I believe the reason to use percentage and not difference is because of retirements during a match. Say your opponent retires when you are up 6-3 2-0, if they used difference, your set difference would be only +1 whereas with percentage it is 100%.
Also they have to take into account players not playing 3 matches due to injury, and alternates wich means that percentage is better than difference.

I think you're right, that's an explanation, although they also have other ways to deal with matches won by retirement (a match won 6-3 2-0 counts as a straight set-win, and those matches won by retirement don't count for game ratios)

alansk
11-26-2009, 01:36 PM
I was just going to ask how a retirement would affect all this.

Shadow Knows
11-26-2009, 02:26 PM
Lots of complaints about the round robin format. The solution? A modified** double-elimination format.

In the first round of matches, the highest seed in each group plays the lowest seed, while the middle seeds play one another. In the next round of matches, winners play winners and losers play losers. To that point, it's exactly the same as things are now.

Where things diverge is that the two-time losers (Verdasco, Nadal) would be out, the two-time winners (Federer, Soderling) would advance to the semifinals, and the players who are 1-1 (Murray-del Potro, Djokovic-Davydenko) would play each other for the right to face the undefeated player from the opposite group in the semifinals.

So...
First match | Second match | Third match | Semifinals | Finals
Federer-Verdasco | Federer-Murray | Murray-del Potro | Federer-Djok/denko | Winner Fed-ND/ND
Murray-del Potro | del-Potro-Verdasco | | |
| | | |
Nadal-Soderling | Djokovic-Soderling | Djokovic-Davydenko | Soderling-Mur/Potro | Winner Sod-AM/JMdP
Djokovic-Davydenko | Nadal-Davydenko | | |


** A true double-elimination includes the potential for players to face-off three times in group play. For instance, if Murray and Djokovic won their elimination matches against del Potro and Davydenko, they would set up rematches with Federer and Soderling; if they were to win those matches, they would have to play again in de facto semifinals, because Federer and Soderling would still only have one loss.

I don't really have much of a problem with it, but I imagine others could find it tedious. Hence the modification.

gjr
11-26-2009, 02:29 PM
It'll be Murray in 2. Good luck Fed :)

The Magic Hand
11-26-2009, 03:35 PM
It'll be Murray in 2. Good luck Fed :)

Not so fast .... ;)

Garson007
11-26-2009, 03:40 PM
Federer just got it made easier for him.

Mechlan
11-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Updated.

1. Murray beats Verdasco in 2 : Murray is qualified, Verdasco out,

the winner of Fed-JMDP is the second qualifier

(Fed being first if he wins, JMDP being second to Murray if he wins)

1a. Fed beats JMDP : Fed is 1st, Murray 2nd
1b. JMDP beats Fed : Murray is 1st, JMDP second

2. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets and wins 4 more games than Verdasco (for instance 6/4 4/6 6/2) : Murray is qualified, Verdasco out,

JMDP has to beat Fed in 2 sets to qualify and eliminate Federer (in that case, Murray is first of the group, JMDP is 2nd)

... or in 3 sets with 8 games difference, which is huge :lol: (for instance 6/1 6/7 6/2)

Fed is first of the group if he wins, or if he loses in 3 sets by no more than 6 games difference -for instance not worse than 6/3 6/7 6/2

3. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets but doesn't win more than 3 games more than Verdasco (for instance 6/3 3/6 6/3) :

Verdasco is out,

Murray is not completely qualified as he can still fear a victory by JMDP in 3 sets with a big game difference for JMDP (the worst case for Murray being a win by JMDP by 7 games difference, for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2)

JMDP has to win in 2 sets or 3 sets with a big game difference,

Federer has to win one set and ensure that he doesn't lose by not more than 7 games (for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2 would be enough for him ... even to finish number 1 of the group) ,

4. Verdasco beats Murray in 2 sets : Murray is out, Federer is qualified

JMDP has to beat Fed to qualify and eliminate Verdasco (and JMDP would be first in that case)

5. Verdasco beats Murray in 3 sets with at least two games difference (for instance 6/4 4/6 6/4) : Murray is out, Federer is qualified,

JMDP qualifies and eliminates Verdasco if he wins ... or if he loses in 3 sets but gets at least 2 more games than Federer, which is very hard (for instance 6/4 0/6 6/4 or 7/6 2/6 7/6)

Else Verdasco goes to SF with Federer

6. Verdasco beats Murray in 3 sets with only one game difference or not more games than Murray : Verdasco is out, Federer is qualified,

JMDP qualifies and eliminates Murray if he wins ... or if he loses in 3 sets but gets a lot more games than Federer, even more than 2 :rolleyes:

Else Murray is the second to Federer

FedererGrandSlam
11-26-2009, 03:45 PM
6. isn't correct.

Right now Verdasco needs a 6-3 in the 3rd to overtake Murray. But even if he wins by a smaller margin he would still qualify if Federer beats Del Potro in two sets.

Yipee2009
11-26-2009, 04:11 PM
Updated.

2. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets and wins 4 more games than Verdasco (for instance 6/4 4/6 6/2) : Murray is qualified, Verdasco out,

JMDP has to beat Fed in 2 sets to qualify and eliminate Federer (in that case, Murray is first of the group, JMDP is 2nd)

... or in 3 sets with 8 games difference, which is huge :lol: (for instance 6/1 6/7 6/2)

Fed is first of the group if he wins, or if he loses in 3 sets by no more than 6 games difference -for instance not worse than 6/3 6/7 6/2

3. Murray beats Verdasco in 3 sets but doesn't win more than 3 games more than Verdasco (for instance 6/3 3/6 6/3) :

Verdasco is out,

Murray is not completely qualified as he can still fear a victory by JMDP in 3 sets with a big game difference for JMDP (the worst case for Murray being a win by JMDP by 7 games difference, for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2)

JMDP has to win in 2 sets or 3 sets with a big game difference,

Federer has to win one set and ensure that he doesn't lose by not more than 7 games (for instance 6/2 6/7 6/2 would be enough for him ... even to finish number 1 of the group) ,




What's the difference between 2 and 3 ?

Hazem
11-26-2009, 04:14 PM
I think now Verdasco eliminated in 4-4 in third set against Murray, even if Verdasco wins.

Mechlan
11-26-2009, 04:15 PM
6. isn't correct.

Right now Verdasco needs a 6-3 in the 3rd to overtake Murray. But even if he wins by a smaller margin he would still qualify if Federer beats Del Potro in two sets.

I think you're right, maybe someone who's worked out the numbers can confirm.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:20 PM
He isn't eliminated.

If he still wins in 3, then if Federer wins in 2, Murray and Verdasco will have better sets ratio than Del Potro, and then Verdasco is through on the account of his H2H with Murray (if that happens).

It's all in the very first post.

bluefork
11-26-2009, 04:20 PM
I think you're right, maybe someone who's worked out the numbers can confirm.

I believe FedererGrandSlam is right. If Verdasco wins in three sets, his set record will be 4-5, and Murray's will be 4-5. If Delpo loses in two, his set record will be 3-5. So Del Potro will be eliminated, and it will be between Murray and Verdasco for the second semifinal spot. By their h2h, Verdasco will win.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 04:23 PM
He isn't eliminated.

If he still wins in 3, then if Federer wins in 2, Murray and Verdasco will have better sets ratio than Del Potro, and then Verdasco is through on the account of his H2H with Murray (if that happens).

It's all in the very first post.

H2H rule is done only in two-players ties.
If Verdasco wins & Del Potro loses, then there is three-players tie , so sets or games % is the determinator not H2H.

Also , the tie is in # of wins & # of matches.

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 04:25 PM
6. isn't correct.

Right now Verdasco needs a 6-3 in the 3rd to overtake Murray. But even if he wins by a smaller margin he would still qualify if Federer beats Del Potro in two sets.

This is right, if Fed beats Pony in two sets or in 3 sets but big margin in games then we have a triple tie with Pony out first, then between Verdasco and Murray is defined by head to head.

Rules:

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/About/Rules.aspx

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:25 PM
H2H rule is done only in two-players ties.
If Verdasco wins & Del Potro loses, then there is three-players tie , so sets or games % is the determinator not H2H.

Rule number one: don't question my posts. :devil:

If Verdasco wins, and Del Potro loses in TWO, then there is NO 3-way tie, because Del Potro would then have inferior sets won ratio to both Verdasco and Murray. Therefore, he is eliminated, and H2H between Murray and Verdasco decides - Verdasco goes through.

BTW, this is soon likely to become a moot point, LOL.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Thanks to the choker of Verdasco now Pony needs an impalusible victory in 2 or in 3 with huge game differential.
The choking of Verdasco nearly put Pony out of contention.

Beat
11-26-2009, 04:34 PM
my head is spinning.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:36 PM
Federer 2-0, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games (+10)
Murray 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-43 games (+1)
Del Potro 1-1, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games (-4)
Verdasco 0-3, 3-6 sets, 45-52 games (-7)


1. Federer beats Del Potro, Federer is 1st, Murray 2nd.

2. Del Potro beats Federer in 2, Del Potro is 1st, Murray 2nd.

3. Del Potro beats Federer in 3.... things get REALLY complicated, because not only games differential counts, but also the absolute number of games. Sheesh. I'll do it shortly; for starters Del Potro needs at least +5 games differential to have ANY chances, which is already not easy.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 04:40 PM
Rule number one: don't question my posts. :devil:

If Verdasco wins, and Del Potro loses in TWO, then there is NO 3-way tie, because Del Potro would then have inferior sets won ratio to both Verdasco and Murray. Therefore, he is eliminated, and H2H between Murray and Verdasco decides - Verdasco goes through.

BTW, this is soon likely to become a moot point, LOL.

Rule number one : Don't think that you are always right.
Rule number two : Recognition error isn't a shame.

Standings are determined by:
1) Number of wins;
2) Number of matches;
3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records;
4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won;
5) Steering Committee decision.

So the tie is in the number of wins & number of matches.
H2H is done in 2 plaeyrs tie even if one of them is more set % than the other.

In 2008 .. Djokovic was number one & Davydenko was number two in the group although Davydenko's game % was larger than that of Djokovic .. That's because H2H was in favour of Djokovic.

In 2006 .. Davydenko was number 3 & Robredo was number 4 although they were equal in number of wins but Robredo's set % was larger .. That's because H2H was in favour of Davydenko.

Revise your informations & what I wrote.

DJ Soup
11-26-2009, 04:40 PM
fuck, I was hoping Delpo and Fed to classify.
Doesn't seem too probable

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:40 PM
For example, if Del Potro beats Federer in 3 with +6, +7 or +8 games differential, e.g.

6-2 4-6 6-2
6-2 3-6 6-2
6-1 4-6 6-1

Then Murray is eliminated certainly (as both Federer and Del Potro would have superior games differential). Now if such a thing happens, all sorts of conspiracy theories will arise undoubtedly. :devil:

LaFuria
11-26-2009, 04:41 PM
Come on Fed and Delpo, make an under the table agreement!

alansk
11-26-2009, 04:42 PM
Can someone spell it out simply now?

Fed wins = fed and Murray thru
delpo 2-0 = delpo and Murray thru
delpo 2-1 = ?

Sorry I'm too late...

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 04:43 PM
For example, if Del Potro beats Federer in 3 with +6, +7 or +8 games differential, e.g.

6-2 4-6 6-2
6-2 3-6 6-2
6-1 4-6 6-1

Then Murray is eliminated certainly (as both Federer and Del Potro would have superior games differential). Now if such a thing happens, all sorts of conspiracy theories will arise undoubtedly. :devil:

Chances of that happening = 0%.
When was the last chance that Federer didn't go beyond past 2 in 2 sets of a best of 3 match? Several years ago I reckon.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:43 PM
Rule number one : Don't think that you are always right.
Rule number two : Recognition error isn't a shame.

I agree completely. Recognition of an error isn't a shame. Read the rulebook more carefully, and admit you made an error. :shrug:


d) If three (3) players are tied, then:
i) If three (3) players each have one win, a player having played less than all
three (3) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to
the single elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the two
(2) players tied with 1-2 records; or
ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or
iii) Highest percentage of games won.
iv) If (i), (ii) or (iii) produce one (1) superior player (first place), or one (1) inferior player (third place), and the two (2) remaining players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken by head-to-head record.


See this bold? Do try to interpret it in a correct way. I mean this bit about a 'superior' or 'inferior' player, while the other two are tied.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 04:43 PM
Can someone spell it out simply now?

Fed wins = fed and Murray thru
delpo 2-0 = delpo and Murray thru
delpo 2-1 = ?

Delpo 2-1, goes to game differential, but most likely Fed and Murray through. Potro would need a weird scoreline to advance because he's starting with a worse game ratio than the others.

pica_pica
11-26-2009, 04:44 PM
I really hope that Federer and Del Potro can enter SF together :awww:

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Edited => wrong.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 04:46 PM
Chances of that happening = 0%.
When was the last chance that Federer didn't go beyond past 2 in 2 sets of a best of 3 match? Several years ago I reckon.

Yes, but a 6-3 6-7 6-2 scoreline isn't completely impossible.

6-3 could be just one break, 6-2 is two.

Wulfram
11-26-2009, 04:48 PM
From BBC live text

1742: Forget what I said at 1733... Piers, who is at the O2 Arena, says the ATP have just made a new statement about how Group A will be decided, which is as follows: Any win for Federer will take Murray through but a straight-sets win for Del Potro would put the Scot out, while a three-set win for Del Potro would see it come down to the percentage of games won by Murray, Federer and Del Potro. Got that? Sorry for the uncertainty about this, but it appears even the ATP aren't sure about it!

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 04:49 PM
Yes, but a 6-3 6-7 6-2 scoreline isn't completely impossible.

6-3 could be just one break, 6-2 is two.

Well, not completely impossible, but let's just say the odds are very low. Del Potro's only realistic (and very uphill) chance is to win in 2.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 04:50 PM
From BBC live text

1742: Forget what I said at 1733... Piers, who is at the O2 Arena, says the ATP have just made a new statement about how Group A will be decided, which is as follows: Any win for Federer will take Murray through but a straight-sets win for Del Potro would put the Scot out, while a three-set win for Del Potro would see it come down to the percentage of games won by Murray, Federer and Del Potro. Got that? Sorry for the uncertainty about this, but it appears even the ATP aren't sure about it!

That seems wrong. If Potro wins in 2 Fed is out and Murray through.
ATP doesn't know what they say.

alter ego
11-26-2009, 04:51 PM
Del Potro beats Federer 6-3 5-7 6-2

Roger 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-39 games
DelPo 2-1, 5-4,sets 44-43 games
Muarry 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-43 games

:)
Muarry goes through.

dylan24
11-26-2009, 04:53 PM
atp is a fucking joke. of course they are clueless about everything...

this from the tour who found donkey innocent. donkey was more guilty than oj
simpson

let agassi use crystal meth.....etc.....

atp and wta suck balls

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Quick sums say if Delpot wins 2-1, he needs +5 games, except if the lost set was a tiebreak, then he needs +6, ie

DelPot wins 6-3 6-7 6-3, ends with 45-44 games (50.56%), Murray 44-43 (50.57%).

David Kenzie
11-26-2009, 05:01 PM
Those rules are not fucking clear. If It is a 3 way tie and a superior or inferior player is determined by sets or games percentage, then we don't know for sure how the other two are determined (H2H or by the same rule that determined the superior or inferior player ???)

Apemant
11-26-2009, 05:01 PM
Federer 2-0, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games (+10)
Murray 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-43 games (+1)
Del Potro 1-1, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games (-4)


Wow, this is crazy. :devil:

since Murray's games differential is positive, it is actually better for Del Potro to win less games, because if he wins 16 games (or less), then +5 differential also works for him at the expense of Murray, because 43-42 is a better ratio than 44-43. So, for example

6-3 4-6 6-2 works for Del Potro, since he would then have said 43-42 ratio and beat Murray by the smallest of margins. :devil:
Also 6-2 3-6 6-2, 6-1 4-6 6-2, 6-1 2-6 6-2 and many other scorelines.

HOWEVER, 6-3 5-7 6-2 *doesn't* work for him, even though it is also +5, because then he would have exactly the same ratio as Murray, so Murray would be through because of their H2H.

Also, 6-4 6-7 6-2 also doesn't work, because 45-44 is a worse ratio than 44-43.

I could also examine the other 'end', namely the one which occurs with Del Potro beating Federer in 3 with +9 games ratio, which is even more of a SF scenario, so I won't go there.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Federer 2-0, 4-2 sets, 32-22 games (+10)
Murray 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-43 games (+1)
Del Potro 1-1, 3-3 sets, 27-31 games (-4)
Verdasco 0-3, 3-6 sets, 45-52 games (-7)


1. Federer beats Del Potro, Federer is 1st, Murray 2nd.

2. Del Potro beats Federer in 2, Del Potro is 1st, Murray 2nd.

3. Del Potro beats Federer in 3.... things get REALLY complicated, because not only games differential counts, but also the absolute number of games. Sheesh. I'll do it shortly; for starters Del Potro needs at least +5 games differential to have ANY chances, which is already not easy.

Yes , this what I said firstly when I thaught that it is determined by set or game differntial not percentage.
I agree with you in this post.

But I still believe that Verdasco was eliminated when it was 4-4 in third ser even if he won.

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Say that Delpo wins in three, then how much can Federer loose to still come ranked nr 1 in his group? :)

pica_pica
11-26-2009, 05:03 PM
I wonder if the players know how they can be thru to SFs :tape: They can't be calculating the games they have to win while focusing on the match, can they?

Apemant
11-26-2009, 05:06 PM
Yes , this what I said firstly when I thaught that it is determined by set or game differntial not percentage.
I agree with you in this post.

But I still believe that Verdasco was eliminated when it was 4-4 in third ser even if he won.

You believe wrongly. If you want, I can explain it in great detail, citing the exact rule which says so. Or you can do it yourself.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 05:07 PM
People lets not forget about the last rule :

Del Po can have a better game percentage than Murray but he will still be third, if Federer has the best game percentage.

No. While the rule is confusing, the consensus is that (iv) kicks in only when two (out of three) players are still tied in sets and games. So only if Murray and Pony are tied in sets and games the H2H would matter.

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 05:08 PM
Fed wins => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 2 sets => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins 3 sets 7 or less games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 3 sets 8 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.

Fed is classified.
Pony needs 2 sets win, or 3 sets win with 8 games difference (which is unlikely 67 62 61).

alter ego
11-26-2009, 05:08 PM
No. While the rule is confusing, the consensus is that (iv) kicks in only when two (out of three) players are still tied in sets and games. So only if Murray and Pony are tied in sets and games the H2H would matter.

OOps sorry you are right.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 05:09 PM
Say that Delpo wins in three, then how much can Federer loose to still come ranked nr 1 in his group? :)

This is not an easy question. :devil:

He can definitely afford to lose with -6 games differential, while -8 is definitely too much (he comes second behind Del Potro). However, if he loses with -7 games differential, then it also depends on the total number of games played. LOL, what a mess, unfuckingbelievable. :haha:

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 05:10 PM
Say that Delpo wins in three, then how much can Federer loose to still come ranked nr 1 in his group? :)

If Delpo wins in 3, Federer is virtually assured number 1 of the group. The game differential for Del Potro would have to be +7. Something like 6-2 6-7 6-2. Even in that case one has to count games.

Note that if Del Potro wins in 3 with game differential +10, then Federer is out. Of course this is nearly impossible, it would have to be 6-0 6-7 6-1.

alter ego
11-26-2009, 05:10 PM
Fed wins => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 2 sets => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins 3 sets 7 or less games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 3 sets 8 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.

Fed is classified.
Pony needs 2 sets win, or 3 sets win with 8 games difference (which is unlikely 67 62 61).

No he isn't, if Fed loses in 2, he'll be 4-4 on sets. Muarry and Del Po 5-4.

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 05:10 PM
Pony wins 2 sets => Fed and Pony.



I make it:

1st. Del Potro 2 5-3
2nd. Murray 2 5-4
3rd. Federer 2 4-4

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:10 PM
So what your'e saying is that if say in group B, Söderling and Davy stands with 5-2 resp 5-3 which one of those will the be ranked nr one? The one that won the H2H which would be Davy or Söderling which have better set score? :)

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 05:11 PM
Fed wins => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 2 sets => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins 3 sets 7 or less games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins 3 sets 8 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.

Fed is classified.
Pony needs 2 sets win, or 3 sets win with 8 games difference (which is unlikely 67 62 61).

Wrong. If Pony wins in 2 Fed is out.
Please people, read Apemant's post. That information is correct. Lots of incorrect information floating around.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 05:12 PM
HOWEVER, 6-3 5-7 6-2 *doesn't* work for him, even though it is also +5, because then he would have exactly the same ratio as Murray, so Murray would be through because of their H2H.

My friend :)
H2H will be out if Delpotro wins execept for detemination of number 1 & number 2.

If Delpotro wins in 2 , the set % will be in favour of Delpotro & Murray so they will qualify together.
Then H2H between them makes Murray number 1 & Delpotro number 2 even if Delpotro's game % is larger.

If Del Potro wins in 3 , the set % will be equal to the three players , so the game % will be the determinator , then H2H determine who is number 1 & who is number 2.

anon57
11-26-2009, 05:13 PM
From BBC live text

1742: Forget what I said at 1733... Piers, who is at the O2 Arena, says the ATP have just made a new statement about how Group A will be decided, which is as follows: Any win for Federer will take Murray through but a straight-sets win for Del Potro would put the Scot out, while a three-set win for Del Potro would see it come down to the percentage of games won by Murray, Federer and Del Potro. Got that? Sorry for the uncertainty about this, but it appears even the ATP aren't sure about it!:confused:This is a mistake by the ATP right? Won't a straight-sets win by Del Potro put Federer out and not Murray:scratch:

Edit: Nevermind quoted text is wrong, ATP sebsite says that straight-sets win by Del Potro will eliminate Federer

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 05:13 PM
No he isn't, if Fed loses in 2, he'll be 4-4 on sets. Muarry and Del Po 5-4.


No!
If Fed loses in 2, Pony is first in group, then h2h between Fed and Murray.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 05:15 PM
My friend :)
H2H will be out if Delpotro wins execept for detemination of number 1 & number 2.

If Delpotro wins in 2 , the set % will be in favour of Delpotro & Murray so they will qualify together.
Then H2H between them makes Murray number 1 & Delpotro number 2 even if Delpotro's game % is larger.

If Del Potro wins in 3 , the set % will be equal to the three players , so the game % will be the determinator , then H2H determine who is number 1 & who is number 2.

Once again, Apemant is right, you are wrong.
I don't mean to be rude, but Apemant has posted only correct information on this difficult stuff, rather than keep murking the waters with wrong information, defer to Apemant who really knows how this works.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 05:16 PM
No!
If Fed loses in 2, Pony is first in group, then h2h between Fed and Murray.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

If Fed loses in 2 it's Pony first, Murray second, Fed out on account of sets ratio

PLEASE PEOPLE, READ APEMANT'S POSTS AND DON'T MAKE FOOLS OF YOURSELVES.

Thanks.

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:17 PM
No!
If Fed loses in 2, Pony is first in group, then h2h between Fed and Murray.

That is totally different from everything else posted so far, are you sure that's how it'll turn out?

alter ego
11-26-2009, 05:17 PM
This is all Murray's fault. Coldn't he have lost for God sake ?

Apemant
11-26-2009, 05:17 PM
My friend :)
H2H will be out if Delpotro wins execept for detemination of number 1 & number 2.

Correct, unless two of them have the exact same games ratio; odds of that happening are slim, but still possible. Del Potro could, for example, win in 3 but get the exact same games ratio as Murray. In that case, since Federer has superior games ratio, Federer is 1st, and the rule iv) kicks in, which means Del Potro and Murray are broken by their H2H.

analysist
11-26-2009, 05:21 PM
I agree completely. Recognition of an error isn't a shame. Read the rulebook more carefully, and admit you made an error. :shrug:


d) If three (3) players are tied, then:
i) If three (3) players each have one win, a player having played less than all
three (3) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to
the single elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the two
(2) players tied with 1-2 records; or
ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or
iii) Highest percentage of games won.
iv) If (i), (ii) or (iii) produce one (1) superior player (first place), or one (1) inferior player (third place), and the two (2) remaining players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken by head-to-head record.


See this bold? Do try to interpret it in a correct way. I mean this bit about a 'superior' or 'inferior' player, while the other two are tied.
Totally agree with you. For hazem533, I will make you clear with this explain:
Following priority:
First : (i) & (iv)
Second : (ii) & (iv)
Third : (iii) & (iv)

The same like ATP Rule but more understandable

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 05:32 PM
That is totally different from everything else posted so far, are you sure that's how it'll turn out?

I was wrong, Fed can be out if pony wins in 2.

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets with less than 6 games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.

samanosuke
11-26-2009, 05:36 PM
Fed was two times one breaker from semis and now him will go out if he loses in two . That could be one of the most unlucky turns

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:43 PM
I was wrong, Fed can be out if pony wins in 2.

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets with less than 6 games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.

Will it be in that order then aswell? meaning that Federer can't become second in his group? that he'll come first regardless of DelPos three set win regarding games won? :)

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 05:48 PM
There's also the FedwinsfirstsetthengoesAWOL scenario: Delpot wins 67 61 60. Then it's a 3-way, and games ratio is...

Delpot 45-39
Murray 44-43
Fed 40-40


Not overly likely, admittedly :-)

Hazem
11-26-2009, 05:49 PM
Correct, unless two of them have the exact same games ratio; odds of that happening are slim, but still possible. Del Potro could, for example, win in 3 but get the exact same games ratio as Murray. In that case, since Federer has superior games ratio, Federer is 1st, and the rule iv) kicks in, which means Del Potro and Murray are broken by their H2H.

This is what I mean !

3c273
11-26-2009, 05:51 PM
No!
If Fed loses in 2, Pony is first in group, then h2h between Fed and Murray.
No!!! If Fed loses in 2, then Fed will be 3rd in the tie according to set ratio and out, then h2h between Murray and Pony set Murray 1st .

Byrd
11-26-2009, 05:52 PM
When's the last time Fed got bagelled and/or breadsticked apart from the 2008 RG final?

analysist
11-26-2009, 05:54 PM
I was wrong, Fed can be out if pony wins in 2.

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets with less than 6 games difference => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6 or more games difference => Fed and Pony.
Just curious, if Pony wins with score 6-0 6-7 6-0 (+11) , does Fed still qualify?:devil:

Hazem
11-26-2009, 05:55 PM
You believe wrongly. If you want, I can explain it in great detail, citing the exact rule which says so. Or you can do it yourself.

I know that that the standings are determined by:
1) Number of wins;
2) Number of matches;
3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records;
4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won;
5) Steering Committee decision.

This is written in Wikipedia. If you agree with this explain to me how Verdasco wouldn't be eliminated if he had won the third set against Murray 6-4.

If you have another rules more confidentable, pass them to me please.
Thanks.

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 05:55 PM
When's the last time Fed got bagelled and/or breadsticked apart from the 2008 RG final?

Murray breadsticked him at Indian Wells this year.

Bagel..... the famous Byron Black match Wimbledon 99?

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:56 PM
No!!! If If Fed loses in 2, then Fed will be 3rd in the tie and out, then h2h between Murray and Pony set Murray 1st .

But some here are saying that the H2H will only happen if say Murray and Pony are on the exact number of games won? So which is it first number of games won and then H2H or is it the other way around?

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 05:57 PM
I know that that the standings are determined by:
1) Number of wins;
2) Number of matches;
3) In two-players-ties, head-to-head records;
4) In three-players-ties, percentage of sets won, or of games won;
5) Steering Committee decision.

This is written in Wikipedia. If you agree with this explain to me how Verdasco wouldn't be eliminated if he had won the third set against Murray 6-4.

If you have another rules more confidentable, pass them to me please.
Thanks.



Wiki is wrong, they're omitting the 1+2 (1 superior, 2 inferior, or vice versa) rule where h2h kicks in to split a 3-way tie. See here:

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/~/media/B6C6BED050EC4B1BA338F6BAE00975D7.ashx

gam_jonte
11-26-2009, 05:58 PM
And if anyone here can answer which will be ranked nr 1 in group B if Söderling loses to Davydenko in three? Will Davy be ranked nr 1 then because of the H2H?

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 06:00 PM
Just curious, if Pony wins with score 6-0 6-7 6-0 (+11) , does Fed still qualify?:devil:

I think Fed is out in that case:

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets less than 6 games => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6-7 games difference => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins in 3 sets 8-9 games difference => Pony and Fed.
Pony wins in 3 sets 10-11 games difference => Pony and Murray.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 06:05 PM
And if anyone here can answer which will be ranked nr 1 in group B if Söderling loses to Davydenko in three? Will Davy be ranked nr 1 then because of the H2H?

Well, it would depend on the result of Nadal-Djokovic. If Nadal beats Djokovic (highly unlikely), then Davy will be number 1 if he beats Söda ny any score because of H2H. But if Nole wins, then there's a triple 2-1 tie and one has to count the sets of all 3 players.

gulzhan
11-26-2009, 06:06 PM
And if anyone here can answer which will be ranked nr 1 in group B if Söderling loses to Davydenko in three? Will Davy be ranked nr 1 then because of the H2H?

Open a thread for Group B ;)

gulzhan
11-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I think Fed is out in that case:

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets less than 6 games => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6-7 games difference => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins in 3 sets 8-9 games difference => Pony and Fed.
Pony wins in 3 sets 10-11 games difference => Pony and Murray.

Thanks! That's real helpful :yeah:

Davai, Del Potro, win in 2 please! :rocker2:

Apemant
11-26-2009, 06:08 PM
Wiki is wrong, they're omitting the 1+2 (1 superior, 2 inferior, or vice versa) rule where h2h kicks in to split a 3-way tie. See here:

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/~/media/B6C6BED050EC4B1BA338F6BAE00975D7.ashx

This.

Wikipedia is a useful tool, but you can't just take whatever is written there, for granted. Check multiple sources when in doubt. Otherwise you're not using Wikipedia correctly, even Wikipedia itself says so, on its page about itself.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 06:10 PM
I think Fed is out in that case:

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets less than 6 games => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6-7 games difference => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins in 3 sets 8-9 games difference => Pony and Fed.
Pony wins in 3 sets 10-11 games difference => Pony and Murray.

Bolded ones further depend on the total games count, not just differential.

Two equal differentials (oxymoron? LOL) aren't neccessarily the same ratio.

3c273
11-26-2009, 06:10 PM
But some here are saying that the H2H will only happen if say Murray and Pony are on the exact number of games won? So which is it first number of games won and then H2H or is it the other way around?

between 2 players, H2H > set ratio > game ratio in priority , set ratio or game ratio are counted only in a tie, with Fed ousted ,the tie broke,then H2H between Murray and Pony come to decide who is 1st.

analysist
11-26-2009, 06:11 PM
I think Fed is out in that case:

Fed wins any score => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 2 sets => Pony and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets less than 6 games => Fed and Murray.
Pony wins in 3 sets 6-7 games difference => Fed and Pony.
Pony wins in 3 sets 8-9 games difference => Pony and Fed.
Pony wins in 3 sets 10-11 games difference => Pony and Murray.

Thanks you, so if Fed wins 7-6 first set, he just have to gain at least 2 games to qualify:cool: But I think this doesn't just depend on differential, but percentage of sets win. So ..it's complicated

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 06:17 PM
How are retirements counted?

This is extremely unlikely, but say Fed retires during the first set.
Or to make it even worse, say Fed wins the first set and retires during the second set.
Clearly if Pony retires then Fed and Murray are through.

analysist
11-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Bolded ones further depend on the total games count, not just differential.

Two equal differentials (oxymoron? LOL) aren't neccessarily the same ratio.

You are true:D like 3/5 and 2/4 , substraction both equal 2, but 3/5 = 60% , 2/4 = 40% , so different ratio.
But if the score win/loss is positive, so with the same differential, the player with more games wons must have better ratio

Apemant
11-26-2009, 06:19 PM
Thanks you, so if Fed wins 7-6 first set, he just have to gain at least 2 games to qualify:cool: But I think this doesn't just depend on differential, but percentage of sets win. So ..it's complicated

Exactly, read my post #95, it's further examined there.

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 06:19 PM
You are true:D like 3/5 and 2/4 , substraction both equal 2, but 3/5 = 60% , 2/4 = 40% , so different ratio.
But if the score win/loss is positive, so with the same differential, the player with more game wons must qualify

Actually, if two players have the same positive differential, then the player with the least games won qualifies, because it would give a better ratio.

If two players have the same negative differential, then the player with the most games won qualifies.

JanKowalski
11-26-2009, 06:21 PM
And if anyone here can answer which will be ranked nr 1 in group B if Söderling loses to Davydenko in three? Will Davy be ranked nr 1 then because of the H2H?

Depends on whether Djokovic wins against Nadal.

Djokovic wins:

1. Sod 2-1 5-2
2. Dav 2-1 5-3
3. Djo 2-1 4-3 or 4-4

Djokovic loses:

1. Dav 2-1
2. Sod 2-1
3. Nad 1-2
4. Djo 1-2

Sets don't matter in this case because only 2 players (not 3) are tied with the same win-lose ratio (it also aplies to nadal-djokovic for 3-4 place).

PS. For me this shows, that these rules are a little ... strange.

philosophicalarf
11-26-2009, 06:29 PM
How are retirements counted?



"In applying the tie-breaking procedures, a conduct default or retirement shall
count as a straight-set win or loss."


ie same as Delpot winning 2-0. Delpot 1st, Murray 2nd.

Yamor
11-26-2009, 06:31 PM
If Federer beats Del Potro, Federer would be top, and Murray second.


If Del Potro beats Federer in 2 sets, Del Potro would be top, and Murray second.


If Del Potro beats Federer in 3 sets:

If Del Potro wins 10 games more then Federer, Del Potro would be top, Murray second.

If Del Potro wins 8-9 games more then Federer, Del Potro would be top, Federer second.

If Del Potro wins 6-7 games more then Federer, Federer would be top, Del Potro second.

If Del Potro wins 5 games more then Federer, then if Del Potro wins 17 or more games in total, Federer would be top, Murray second. However, if Del Potro wins less then 17 games in total, he'll replace Murray in second place.

If Del Potro wins 4 games or less more then Federer, Federer would be top, Murray second.

JanKowalski
11-26-2009, 06:38 PM
They must be reading this thred :D

analysist
11-26-2009, 06:42 PM
Actually, if two players have the same positive differential, then the player with the least games won qualifies, because it would give a better ratio.

If two players have the same negative differential, then the player with the most games won qualifies.
thanks, my fault. I count depend on %won/lost instead of %won/total. it 'so confused:devil:

Certinfy
11-26-2009, 06:42 PM
Nice working out guys :yeah: :worship: Really looking forward to the match now :D

LocoPorElTenis
11-26-2009, 06:47 PM
I would like the first two sets to go something like 6-1 to Del Pony, 6-7 to Fed, so everybody will go crazy in the third doing calculations :lol:

analysist
11-26-2009, 06:52 PM
If Fed has bagel first set, that mean Potro will need 1 bagels and 1 breadstick next two sets:lol:

tiziano27
11-26-2009, 07:11 PM
If Federer beats Del Potro, Federer would be top, and Murray second.


If Del Potro beats Federer in 2 sets, Del Potro would be top, and Murray second.


If Del Potro beats Federer in 3 sets:

If Del Potro wins 10 games more then Federer, Del Potro would be top, Murray second.

If Del Potro wins 8-9 games more then Federer, Del Potro would be top, Federer second.

If Del Potro wins 6-7 games more then Federer, Federer would be top, Del Potro second.

If Del Potro wins 5 games more then Federer, then if Del Potro wins 17 or more games in total, Federer would be top, Murray second. However, if Del Potro wins less then 17 games in total, he'll replace Murray in second place.

If Del Potro wins 4 games or less more then Federer, Federer would be top, Murray second.

Yes, that's right.

Go Pony win in 3 sets by 8-9 games!
That's what I will cheer.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 07:35 PM
Wiki is wrong, they're omitting the 1+2 (1 superior, 2 inferior, or vice versa) rule where h2h kicks in to split a 3-way tie. See here:

http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/~/media/B6C6BED050EC4B1BA338F6BAE00975D7.ashx

I read the file & saw that it is the same as in Wiki !
The rules are written briefly in Wiki but correct. The 1-2 rule is not written in Wiki but implied.

This.

Wikipedia is a useful tool, but you can't just take whatever is written there, for granted. Check multiple sources when in doubt. Otherwise you're not using Wikipedia correctly, even Wikipedia itself says so, on its page about itself.

Yes, I do know that.
If we applied the 3d (i) item in the rules on the case if Verdasco won the third set against Murray 6-4 or any result worse we will find that Murray will be superior to him by the game ratio so no use to apply H2H between them.

I do not like to be picky, but I loved to show my point of view wishing that I haven't bothered you.

Thanks a lot.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 07:53 PM
If we applied the 3d (i) item in the rules on the case if Verdasco won the third set against Murray 6-4 or any result worse we will find that Murray will be superior to him by the game ratio so no use to apply H2H between them.

I do not like to be picky, but I loved to show my point of view wishing that I haven't bothered you.

You are still wrong.

H2H would still matter if Federer also beat Del Potro in 2. In that case, Del Potro would have INFERIOR sets won ratio, which means he would be automatically eliminated, and THEN H2H between Verdasco and Murray would decide, since only the two of them would be tied in sets won ratio. (rule iv) )

Hazem
11-26-2009, 08:06 PM
You are still wrong.

H2H would still matter if Federer also beat Del Potro in 2. In that case, Del Potro would have INFERIOR sets won ratio, which means he would be automatically eliminated, and THEN H2H between Verdasco and Murray would decide, since only the two of them would be tied in sets won ratio. (rule iv) )

No.
Rule iv requires that one player is superior or inferior & the other 2 players are tied after applying (ii) & (iii).

In our case , Verdasco-Murray tie in game ratio was impossible. So, rule (iii) will make Murray superior to Verdasco before we need th apply H2H between them.
Isn't it ?

Apemant
11-26-2009, 08:09 PM
No.
Rule iv requires that one player is superior or inferior & the other 2 players are tied after applying (ii) & (iii).

In our case , Verdasco-Murray tie in game ratio was impossible.
Isn't it ?

They would have been tied in sets won. You don't need to look at games if sets can break a tie. And they could have had, since Del Potro would be inferior in sets won ratio. Rule iv) applies, for sets.

Hazem
11-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Now the Federer-Delpotro match started & the trouble will be finished :worship:

David Kenzie
11-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Fed qualified ? Delpo can only get +9 now.

Young 8
11-26-2009, 09:30 PM
what Del Potro needs now ??

6-3 ??

Apemant
11-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Now the Federer-Delpotro match started & the trouble will be finished :worship:

On the contrary, now the trouble starts.

If Del Potro wins the third by 6-3 or better, Murray is out.

Except if Potro wins by 6-0 (or maybe 6-1, I hate to calculate) in which case Fed is out. LOL.

This is NUTS.

The Magic Hand
11-26-2009, 09:33 PM
Really?

I think it's easy now, if DP wins than he's in. If he doesnt, than Murray is in. 6:0 or 7:6 doesnt matter anymore.

madmanfool
11-26-2009, 09:40 PM
Where can you find the games won and lost
They aren't on the site !!!!!!!????????
http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/Results/Group-Standings-2.aspx

samanosuke
11-26-2009, 09:40 PM
Roger will tank in third to throw out Murray . He needs one game in third


poor Murray :haha:

Fed Express
11-26-2009, 09:41 PM
Roger will tank in third to throw out Murray . He needs one game in third


poor Murray :haha:I think he will be happier to play against Murray again than against Del Potro.

ChampionshipPoints
11-26-2009, 09:42 PM
Roger will tank in third to throw out Murray . He needs one game in third


poor Murray :haha:

He won't do that in front of the British crowd.

samanosuke
11-26-2009, 09:42 PM
I think he will be happier to play against Murray again than against Del Potro.


That is sure . But he and Murray are not so good buddies .

Young 8
11-26-2009, 09:45 PM
so.....6-3 and Murray out ???


confirmed ??

Björki
11-26-2009, 09:46 PM
so.....6-3 and Murray out ???


confirmed ??

yes. 6-2 and 6-3

Young 8
11-26-2009, 09:48 PM
yes. 6-2 and 6-3

thanks

Björki
11-26-2009, 09:49 PM
Fed will win imho.

vauxguy
11-26-2009, 09:50 PM
Federer has qualified according to sky commentators.

madmanfool
11-26-2009, 09:53 PM
Federer has qualified according to sky commentators.

I think he qualified after he won one game in the third
DelPo needs 6-3 though

Sinerra
11-26-2009, 09:58 PM
So, if Del Potro loses one more game he's out...

Vamos Delpo! Dont lose any more games!

Melvins
11-26-2009, 10:00 PM
Crazy match!

Del Potro had 2 "exit points" lol and now have 3 "qualify points" (or break to serve to qualify)

And he got it!

samanosuke
11-26-2009, 10:00 PM
hahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Melvins
11-26-2009, 10:01 PM
Andy isn't happy now!

Apemant
11-26-2009, 10:02 PM
For example, if Del Potro beats Federer in 3 with +6, +7 or +8 games differential, e.g.

6-2 4-6 6-2
6-2 3-6 6-2
6-1 4-6 6-1

Then Murray is eliminated certainly (as both Federer and Del Potro would have superior games differential). Now if such a thing happens, all sorts of conspiracy theories will arise undoubtedly. :devil:

This will sound awfuly self-serving... but, weren't the above the words of a prophet? :haha:

Mago#01
11-26-2009, 10:02 PM
Roger is the greatest f.... cool human being on earth

156mphserve
11-26-2009, 10:03 PM
murray must be sick if he knows the current ways of qualification and elimination hahaha

LucasArg
11-26-2009, 10:04 PM
Andy is out!

n8
11-26-2009, 10:08 PM
When was the last time someone missed out on the semis with a 2-1 record? Anyone know?

156mphserve
11-26-2009, 10:13 PM
When was the last time someone missed out on the semis with a 2-1 record? Anyone know?

rusedski missed in 1998 with 2-0 but the last to miss out with 2-1 was rafter in 1997;)

Hazem
11-26-2009, 11:03 PM
Federer qualified as the winner of the group with 44-40 games record & Del Potro qualifies as number 2 with 45-43 games record.
This confirms my point of view about elimination of Verdasco even if he had won third set agains Murray 6-4.

The rule iv (H2H) is applied only when one player is superior or inferior & the other 2 players tie in set & game %.

Here, Murray is eliminated because he is the most inferior of the three ( 44-43 games record ).
Then, if H2H was applied between Federer & Del Potro, the winner of the group should be Del Potro not Federer.
But the game % is in favour of Federer so he is number 1 although he lost to Del Potro.

ivankg
11-26-2009, 11:07 PM
When was the last time someone missed out on the semis with a 2-1 record? Anyone know?


You will see it again tommorow when Djokovic miss it with 2-1 record

Voo de Mar
11-26-2009, 11:09 PM
rusedski missed in 1998 with 2-0 but the last to miss out with 2-1 was rafter in 1997;)

Exactly, the other cases when a player won two matches and didn't enter SF:

Becker 1991
Gottfried 1976


Murray has been 5th.

JanKowalski
11-26-2009, 11:24 PM
Federer qualified as the winner of the group with 44-40 games record & Del Potro qualifies as number 2 with 45-43 games record.
This confirms my point of view about elimination of Verdasco even if he had won third set agains Murray 6-4.

The rule iv (H2H) is applied only when one player is superior or inferior & the other 2 players tie in set & game %.

Here, Murray is eliminated because he is the most inferior of the three ( 44-43 games record ).
Then, if H2H was applied between Federer & Del Potro, the winner of the group should be Del Potro not Federer.
But the game % is in favour of Federer so he is number 1 although he lost to Del Potro.

Wrong. If Verdasco won the 3rd set AND Federer won against Del Potro, 3 players would have 1 win and 2 loses.

Verdasco : 1-2 4-5
Murray : 1-2 4-5
Del Potro 1-2 3-5 or 4-5 (depends on Federer winning in 2 or 3)

Now if Federer won in 2, Del Potro is worst so is OUT and the tie between Verdasco and Murray is decided by H2H.

If Federer won in 3 it would be decided by % of games won.

Apemant
11-26-2009, 11:27 PM
Federer qualified as the winner of the group with 44-40 games record & Del Potro qualifies as number 2 with 45-43 games record.
This confirms my point of view about elimination of Verdasco even if he had won third set agains Murray 6-4.

It confirms no such thing.

Especially for you (I wanna let you know what I was going through)

Right now, the table looks like this:

Federer 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-40 games (+4)
Del Potro 2-1, 5-4 sets, 45-43 games (+2)
Murray 2-1, 5-4 sets, 44-43 games (+1)
Verdasco 0-3, 3-6 sets, 45-52 games (-7)

Carefully examine the first three players. What do you see?

They are tied in match wins and matches played. All 3 are tied, so we can't split them anyhow.
They are ALSO tied in sets won ratio - all 3 are 5-4. Again, we can't possibly split them.
Then we come to games won ratio. Here, Federer is 1st, Del Potro 2nd, Murray 3rd. So we just pick Federer and Del Potro, since all 3 are different, and no two of them are TIED in games ratio, so rule iv) doesn't apply.


Now, bear with me, please. Suppose that Verdasco managed to beat Murray, even 7-6 in the third. Now suppose Federer beat Del Potro in STRAIGHTS, something like 6-4 6-3 for example. What would the table look like?


Federer 3-0, 6-2 sets, 44-29 games (+15)
Verdasco 1-2, 4-5 sets, 46-51 games (-5)
Murray 1-2, 4-5 sets, 43-44 games (-1)
Del Potro 1-2, 3-5 sets, 34-43 games (-9)

What do you see now? Federer is obviously first, and then?

The other 3 are tied with match wins and matches players. So can't break them with matches.
But, look! What about sets? TWO OF THEM ARE TIED, AND DEL POTRO IS INFERIOR. Did you read this sentence?

two of them are tied, the third is inferior (Del Potro)

See it now? So the rule iv) says that the inferior player is eliminated from contention, and the other two ARE DECIDED BY THEIR H2H. Which means Verdasco is through. And games ratios are irrelevant in this scenario, because we already have the solution based on SETS ALONE. (And H2H, of course, as ditated by rule iv) )

Do I need to go in greater detail or will the above suffice? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Hazem
11-26-2009, 11:44 PM
I don't need such details my dear Apemant.
I disagree with you only in the time of application of rule iv.
I think that it is applied after ii & iii even if there is superiority or inferiority in ii.
You think that if there is inferiority or superiority in ii (sets %), H2H is applied directly regardless of iii (games %).

I understand your point of view fron the start & I do not care that I'm wrong but do care that you are not offended by our discussion.

After all. I thank you for this discussion.

JanKowalski
11-26-2009, 11:58 PM
I don't need such details my dear Apemant.
I disagree with you only in the time of application of rule iv.
I think that it is applied after ii & iii even if there is superiority or inferiority in ii.
You think that if there is inferiority or superiority in ii (sets %), H2H is applied directly regardless of iii (games %).

I understand your point of view fron the start & I do not care that I'm wrong but do care that you are not offended by our discussion.

After all. I thank you for this discussion.

iv) If (i), (ii) OR (iii) produce one inferior player, and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two players shall be broken by head-to-head record.

If there was 'AND', not 'OR', you would be right, but you are not in this case.

Hazem
11-27-2009, 12:04 AM
iv) If (i), (ii) OR (iii) produce one inferior player, and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two players shall be broken by head-to-head record.

If there was 'AND', not 'OR', you would be right, but you are not in this case.

Oh, yeah !
This !!
Great note.

Now, I'm really wrong.

Apemant
11-27-2009, 12:11 AM
Oh, yeah !
This !!
Great note.

Now, I'm really wrong.

Think of it this way.

They check matches won first. If only 2 are tied, break them by H2H. But if 3 are tied, they go down, to sets.
Now if only 2 of them are tied in sets won ratio, again, they break them by H2H. Only if ALL THREE are tied in sets won ratio, they go even deeper, to games won ratio. Where all of the above applies.

Obviously it rather makes a LOT of sense. They check matches, then sets, then games - but if at any step you don't have 3-way tie anymore, they break it by H2H, rather than go deeper. Really simple logic.

Aynway, glad you see it now. :)

JanKowalski
11-27-2009, 12:11 AM
Oh, yeah !
This !!
Great note.

Now, I'm really wrong.

Are you being sarcastic ?

There is a polish saying which goes sth like this:

If one person tells you, that you are a horse, you can ignore it.
If two people tell you, that you are a horse, you should look in the mirror.
If three people tell you, that you are a horse, you should buy yourself a saddle.

Apemant
11-27-2009, 12:18 AM
Are you being sarcastic ?

There is a polish saying which goes sth like this:

If one person tells you, that you are a horse, you can ignore it.
If two people tell you, that you are a horse, you should look in the mirror.
If three people tell you, that you are a horse, you should buy yourself a saddle.

Eww I didn't even consider the possibility of sarcasm there? :eek:

But now that you mention, it does rather look like sarcasm. Ah well, whatever.

Hazem
11-27-2009, 12:28 AM
No, I'm not sarcastic at all.
But I said before that you are not always right & error recognition isn't a shame.

JanKowalski
11-27-2009, 12:31 AM
No, I'm not sarcastic at all.
But I said before that you are not always right & error recognition isn't a shame.

My fault then. I was just asking. My english is not as good as I would like it to be.

duong
11-27-2009, 01:07 AM
yes I had missed point 6 : if Fed had won in 2 sets., Verdasco was qualified even with the shortest win.

But what happened is really crazy :crazy:

I was like that when Fed had break points at 3-3 : Murray was with Fed at that time and those points were great if you remember :eek:

then JMDP had break points to eliminate Murray by one game, and it was gone.

Crazy :crazy:

And at least as crazy was the level of the match :eek:

I think we know the final from now on since those two are clearly the best of the field.

Fed should have really played better his serve at 3-4 as I really think JMDP is a huge daqnger for him, much much bigger than Murray in this tournament.

And that match deserves a huge mention among the best-of-3 matches, together, probably a little bit behind because of drama, behind Nadal-Djoko in Madrid.

I will go to bed now but this match really kept me awake : crazy :crazy:

n8
11-27-2009, 02:56 AM
rusedski missed in 1998 with 2-0 but the last to miss out with 2-1 was rafter in 1997;)

Exactly, the other cases when a player won two matches and didn't enter SF:

Becker 1991
Gottfried 1976


Murray has been 5th.

WOW! Great info. Thanks heaps! :yippee:

If it's not too much to ask, could you also tell me the players to advance to the semis with only one win? I think Nalbandian was the last in 2006.

samanosuke
11-27-2009, 08:16 AM
does anyone know what will be scenario if del Potro won for example 6-4 or 7-5 in third . He and Murray will have the same games ratio ( +1 ) but Del Potro won more games than Murray and he will be anyway in semis ?????

Apemant
11-27-2009, 08:21 AM
does anyone know what will be scenario if del Potro won for example 6-4 or 7-5 in third . He and Murray will have the same games ratio ( +1 ) but Del Potro won more games than Murray and he will be anyway in semis ?????

No.

In case of two different, but positive game differentials, the one with fewer games won (and therefore also fewer games lost) constitutes a better games won ratio. (As I already explained in post #16.)

Therefore 6-4 would be no good. I'm not sure if Del Potro was aware of it, because if he was, that ace he blasted on BP at 3-3, on second serve, looks even more impressive. Balls of steel, hats down. :worship:

samanosuke
11-27-2009, 08:25 AM
No.

In case of two different, but positive game differentials, the one with less games won (and therefore also less games lost) constitutes a better games won ratio. (As I already explained in post #16.)

Therefore 6-4 would be no good. I'm not sure if Del Potro was aware of it, because if he did, that ace he blasted on BP at 3-3, on second serve, looks even more impressive. Balls of steel, hats down. :worship:


Ok. thnx

I thought that one with more games won is ahead , in the same case in football team with more goals scored is ahead then one with same differential but with less in his own net .

Driftwood
11-27-2009, 08:31 AM
You don't want to encourage someone to win a set 7-5 over 6-4.

duong
11-27-2009, 09:46 AM
Therefore 6-4 would be no good. I'm not sure if Del Potro was aware of it, because if he was, that ace he blasted on BP at 3-3, on second serve, looks even more impressive. Balls of steel, hats down. :worship:

From what he said, he didn't know that at all, and I also thought before that he was not aware to say the truth,

but we, in front of our TV, were aware and it was huge :eek:

If you add all those TBs with Verdasco, that 2nd set TB Fed-JMDP, suspense was at his maximum in this group :eek: :haha:

duong
11-27-2009, 10:48 AM
By the way, many people said that Federer needed a game in the 3rd set to qualify, but if I don't miss it, he was qualified even if he lost 6-0 :

he would have been 41/40, which would have been better than Murray's 44/43.

After winning the 2nd set TB, he was in SF already.

He only needed 2 games to be number 1 in the group.

Apemant
11-27-2009, 11:05 AM
By the way, many people said that Federer needed a game in the 3rd set to qualify, but if I don't miss it, he was qualified even if he lost 6-0 :

he would have been 41/40, which would have been better than Murray's 44/43.

After winning the 2nd set TB, he was in SF already.

He only needed 2 games to be number 1 in the group.

Correct. :)

I wasn't sure about it, I knew the differential would have been the same, but the suspense was such that I couldn't be bothered to actually count the games, LOL. And as soon as Fed got the 1st game, it wasn't important anymore.

munZe konZa
11-27-2009, 12:01 PM
so we need another miracle today to make Nole pass but this is much simpler. Let Nole and Soda win their matches today no matter the score

Voo de Mar
11-27-2009, 12:27 PM
Therefore 6-4 would be no good. I'm not sure if Del Potro was aware of it, because if he was, that ace he blasted on BP at 3-3, on second serve, looks even more impressive. Balls of steel, hats down. :worship:

:)

Watching the third set I was convinced that Del Potro would have won max. 6-3 to advance, then a stupid commentator said he would have won 6-4 or 7-5 what confused me a little bit :o It's really amazing that risky 2nd serve on the line decided Murray was sent home.

I'm pleased with that serve because at the beginning of the year in Melbourne I was writting that Del Potro's new tactics would have paid off in the future (he lost sets 6-7 to Muller, and 5-7 to Cilic serving double faults after risky 2nd serve at setpoints for the opponents).

Voo de Mar
11-27-2009, 12:28 PM
WOW! Great info. Thanks heaps! :yippee:

If it's not too much to ask, could you also tell me the players to advance to the semis with only one win? I think Nalbandian was the last in 2006.

He's been the only one in the history (in singles; in doubles once a pair with one win at group stage won the tournament).

LocoPorElTenis
11-27-2009, 01:20 PM
so we need another miracle today to make Nole pass but this is much simpler. Let Nole and Soda win their matches today no matter the score

Far from a miracle my Noletard friend. Djokovic isn't losing to Nadal. So it will all be in the hands of the mighty Söderking.

cardio
11-27-2009, 01:34 PM
Far from a miracle my Noletard friend. Djokovic isn't losing to Nadal. So it will all be in the hands of the mighty Söderking.

So Soda will decide who is 4th player in semifinal ? I wonder who he likes better : Djoko or Donkey ? Or money and points he would get from 3rd win ?

munZe konZa
11-27-2009, 01:43 PM
So Soda will decide who is 4th player in semifinal ? I wonder who he likes better : Djoko or Donkey ? Or money and points he would get from 3rd win ?

Soda has a rivalrly with Davy and can pass him if he wins and Soda also beat Nole this week who can then beat Fedeter in semi. If he loses to Davy , then if he goes to final he will Davy whom he lost against and Federer whom he never beat.

Apemant
11-27-2009, 01:50 PM
Soda has a rivalrly with Davy and can pass him if he wins and Soda also beat Nole this week who can then beat Fedeter in semi. If he loses to Davy , then if he goes to final he will Davy whom he lost against and Federer whom he never beat.

Yes but Toad doesn't actually need to beat Davy, to qualify as 1st.

He just needs one set - then the can tank, and he's still 1st. Only, that way Davy is 2nd - while, if Toad wins, Nole is 2nd.

It's all in the hands of the Mighty Toad. :devil:

JanKowalski
11-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Correct. :)

I wasn't sure about it, I knew the differential would have been the same, but the suspense was such that I couldn't be bothered to actually count the games, LOL. And as soon as Fed got the 1st game, it wasn't important anymore.

I was thinking exactly the same way.

JanKowalski
11-27-2009, 01:58 PM
:)

Watching the third set I was convinced that Del Potro would have won max. 6-3 to advance, then a stupid commentator said he would have won 6-4 or 7-5 what confused me a little bit :o It's really amazing that risky 2nd serve on the line decided Murray was sent home.

I'm pleased with that serve because at the beginning of the year in Melbourne I was writting that Del Potro's new tactics would have paid off in the future (he lost sets 6-7 to Muller, and 5-7 to Cilic serving double faults after risky 2nd serve at setpoints for the opponents).

Federer shook his head in disbelief after that 2nd serve. I think it was the turning point, Federer just got mentally crushed and thats why the rest of the set was quite easy for Del Potro.

munZe konZa
11-27-2009, 02:01 PM
Yes but Toad doesn't actually need to beat Davy, to qualify as 1st.

He just needs one set - then the can tank, and he's still 1st. Only, that way Davy is 2nd - while, if Toad wins, Nole is 2nd.

It's all in the hands of the Mighty Toad. :devil:

but he can catch Davy even in this tournament if he beats him today and eliminate him and they have a rivalrgy, remember 6:3 for Soda

n8
11-28-2009, 12:57 AM
He's been the only one in the history (in singles; in doubles once a pair with one win at group stage won the tournament).

That is so interesting! Thanks so much for sharing that info.

That doubles team won the year-end championship with a 3-2 record; nice.

I think Murray has been the unluckiest in recent years. He's got a 5-2 record in year-end championships but only has a semi and round robin exit to show for it.

Voo de Mar
11-28-2009, 01:18 AM
That doubles team won the year-end championship with a 3-2 record; nice.


Connell and Galbraith in 1995:

rr Rick Leach (USA) / Scott Melville (USA) 6-3, 6-2
rr Jacco Eltingh (NED) / Paul Haarhuis (NED) 6-7, 2-6
rr Luis Lobo (ARG) / Javier Sanchez (ESP) 7-5, 6-7, 3-6

S Todd Woodbridge (AUS) / Mark Woodforde (AUS) 7-6, 6-3
W Jacco Eltingh (NED) / Paul Haarhuis (NED) 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6

duong
11-29-2009, 08:34 AM
I think Murray has been the unluckiest in recent years. He's got a 5-2 record in year-end championships but only has a semi and round robin exit to show for it.

Rafter's case in 1997 was also very unlucky, considering he met a much improved Sampras comparing to the one Moya had met in first match ... and also he had had a hard match against Rusedski in 3 sets whereas Moya met his suppleant Muster and won in 2 sets.

Rusedski was also quite unlucky but in a very poor group :shrug:

As for Becker in 1991, he was one tie-break away from SF against Sampras : Sampras was also playing his head actually (and eventually won this tournament)

By the way, Djokovic is another one to be out with two victories.

it's like that ... but actually I think that in both groups, the best 2 players went through this year (and DelPo and Davy will make the final actually ;) ), whereas in 1997 for Rafter, it might have been different.