Coming next year: Sunday starts, RR events, end of best-of-5 matches outside of slams [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Coming next year: Sunday starts, RR events, end of best-of-5 matches outside of slams

Pages : [1] 2

nobama
08-27-2006, 03:36 AM
Not digging the RR idea at all. No surprise thought that the top 2 players support it. :( But at least they're increasing prize money. :yeah:

A.T.P. Adopts Early Starts and Shorter Matches (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/sports/tennis/27atp.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Radical change has proven elusive for men’s tennis, whose leaders have been unable to shorten the season significantly despite concerns about the increased physical demands on star players.

For now, Étienne de Villiers, the new chairman of the ATP, is settling for minor modifications instead of revolution. And last night at a player meeting at the National Tennis Center, he said that the tour board had approved several alterations for 2007, including more Sunday starts for ATP events, the elimination of best-of-five-set matches in nearly all cases outside of the Grand Slam tournaments and, most intriguingly, the introduction of round-robin in the early stages of some lower-level events.

The reaction in the room was generally positive, according to the American player Vince Spadea, but not quite as positive as the reaction to the announcement that prize money would be increased 10 percent across the board at tour events in 2007, the first significant increase for the Tour in seven years.

Andre Agassi also got a roar of approval from his peers in honor of his career, as well as a bottle of 1970 Château Pétrus in honor of his birth year.

“He got a long standing ovation,” Spadea said of Agassi, who has announced that the United States Open, which begins tomorrow, will be his final tournament.

The first day’s lineup has been released, and Agassi is scheduled to play in a night match Monday in Arthur Ashe Stadium. The match will follow the on-court ceremony to name the tennis center for Billie Jean King.

It is unclear whether Agassi will involve himself in the politics of tennis after he shuffles into the sunset in Las Vegas, where he lives, but his close friend and longtime manager, Perry Rogers, is already deeply involved as a member of the ATP board. The six-man board has been consulting more frequently than usual under de Villiers.

De Villiers hopes that starting tournaments on Sunday instead of Monday will increase exposure and allow more opportunity for promotion and interaction with fans. The French Open became the first Grand Slam event to start on Sunday this year. “We’re in the entertainment business,” said De Villiers, a former Disney executive. “Why open your event on the worst day of the week?”

“We’re hoping that between 20 and 30 percent of our events will use the Sunday start in 2007, and it will be mandatory by 2009,” he said, adding that certain events that were close to Grand Slams or Davis Cup weeks would be granted exceptions.

Eliminating best-of-five-set finals outside of the Grand Slam events and the season-ending Masters Cup is designed to limit wear and tear on the top players. After de Villiers assumed his post last year, he quickly made it clear that he wanted to shorten the season significantly to address health concerns. But after learning more about the game’s competing interests, he has backed away from that stance. Best-of-three-set finals also work better for some television networks.

Round robin is already in use at the Masters Cup, the season-ending championships open to the top eight players in the rankings. But it has not been used recently in other tournaments. The idea is to guarantee that fans will get multiple looks at stars at tournaments instead of living with the risk that Roger Federer will, for example, fly all the way to Bangkok for one match and then fly right back home to Switzerland after losing in the first round.

Tournaments with 48-player fields could use 16 round-robin groups of three players; tournaments with 32-player fields could use eight groups of four before becoming single-elimination events in the final stages.

The initial response of the top French player, Richard Gasquet, was negative. De Villiers said Federer and Rafael Nadal, the top-ranked players in the world, support the idea, which protects top players’ interests even though it might lead to them playing more matches over the course of a season.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 03:43 AM
Don't have much of a problem with the other stuff, but round robin is the most ridiculous thing in the world. I'm pretty surprised that Roger "I get tired after 1 event" is in support of a system that would require him, moreso than anyone, to play potentially more matches.

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 03:45 AM
Round robin is already in use at the Masters Cup, the season-ending championships open to the top eight players in the rankings. But it has not been used recently in other tournaments. The idea is to guarantee that fans will get multiple looks at stars at tournaments instead of living with the risk that Roger Federer will, for example, fly all the way to Bangkok for one match and then fly right back home to Switzerland after losing in the first round.Because that happens all the time. :rolleyes: Safin would be a more convincing example, a crowd-pleaser even when his game is way, way off.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 03:46 AM
It's a way of protecting the stars and assuring them that hey, if you're not good enough to come to a tournament ready to play right from the start, we'll give you another chance anyway. And how often do top players really lose in the early rounds? How much of a risk is there of that with the top two at the moment?

cmurray
08-27-2006, 03:48 AM
I HATE the round-robin idea. If you lose, you should be out of the tourney. Period. I realize that tennis is entertainment and that people want to see Rafa and the fed-man, but you shouldn't get a second chance at having a bad day. That sucks.


Cheryl

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 03:52 AM
How much of a risk is there of that with the top two at the moment?Almost none. In fact, I can't think of too many big crowd draws that consistently do that (or they would probably not be big crowd draws in the first place?). Everyone has a bad day and stuff, but this is ridiculous.

Moreover, why is it so important that the top 2 are in favor of it? There are 1348 other guys listed in the rankings whose opinions don't seem to matter at all? :shrug:

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 03:59 AM
Almost none. In fact, I can't think of too many big crowd draws that consistently do that (or they would probably not be big crowd draws in the first place?). Everyone has a bad day and stuff, but this is ridiculous.

Moreover, why is it so important that the top 2 are in favor of it? There are 1348 other guys listed in the rankings whose opinions don't seem to matter at all? :shrug:

I think that's an unfortunate result of what we've seen over the last 18 months or so - two people and their wishes are more important than everyone else's combined. One might almost understand Nadal's support of it considering he's had a couple of early exits this year in Miami and Toronto, but Federer's loss to Murray was his first defeat before the quarters of a tournament in nearly 2 years. What's the panic?

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:01 AM
The round robin idea is absolutely disgusting and idiotic..
its just about ok for the Masters Cup but not a whole lot of the other small events....when a player loses, that is it.. he should be out, its one thing to wanna see Fed/Rafa at least play 3 times (btw does this guy know that Fed/rafa are in the final at least every other week for the last few years anyway) but do people also wanna see O.Marach or S.Gruel 3 times as well (no offence marach and gruel fans :p).

your also bound to get alot of situations where a player goes out of the group by virtue of more games won/lost ratio, meaningless matches and shit like that.

terrible terrible idea.

I'm pretty surprised that Roger "I get tired after 1 event":lol:
as a fedtard i shouldnt laugh at that .... but what can i say :o

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:03 AM
Almost none. In fact, I can't think of too many big crowd draws that consistently do that (or they would probably not be big crowd draws in the first place?). Everyone has a bad day and stuff, but this is ridiculous.

Moreover, why is it so important that the top 2 are in favor of it? There are 1348 other guys listed in the rankings whose opinions don't seem to matter at all? :shrug:*cough* I can think of one, but, no, we can't rearrange the entire tennis system to suit one crazy guy, even a lovable crazy guy. He'll probably be against it anyway. I saw a wonderful quote recently: "point-replay: Befitting his identity as tennis' version of Mikey (who doesn't like anything) in those old Life cereal commercials, 2000 Open winner Marat Safin called it "a stupid idea." :spit: :lol:

Roger "Okay, I won one, give me another five weeks off" Federer and Rafa "No, I don't remember overplaying last year, why do you ask? :confused:" Nadal who own all the points want a contingency plan for early round losses. Uh huh.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:03 AM
:lol:
as a fedtard i shouldnt laugh at that .... but what can i say :oWell, I was trying to be sarcastic/funny :p

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:06 AM
Oh, yeah, thought of something...NOW we understand why the Tursunov blog was revealed today. It's like sugar in the medicine: Yeah, the ATP announced the implementation of a terrible idea today, but they also announced a good one, so we don't totally despise them, because they got one (lonely) thing right.

Edit: Or that's just my conspiracy theory streak showing. ;) :p

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:06 AM
They want to address the health concerns of players, yet they're mandating round-robin formatting for some tourneys? What a laugh.

It's ridiculous thinking. The whole point of the TMC is that it's the 8 best players in the world, therefore it makes sense to give the public as many looks as possible at the top men and to allow the two best players in the field to work their way into the final, hopefully, by giving them another chance to atone for an early defeat. In a regular tournament where the first match is between players with wildly disparate rankings, it should be every man for himself.

Imagine being the "journeyman" who defeats Federer in a nearly three-hour epic, the best victory of his career.... then he loses his next two matches, Federer wins his next two, and it was all completely meaningless. You beat him, but you didn't eliminate him and you didn't progress yourself either. It's no wonder the lower-ranked players aren't dancing in the aisles at this development.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:07 AM
I don't mind the occassional round robin event. I've seen it used in the Champions Tour and it works there. Not every event will be a RR. For the sport to grow sometimes you need to think outside the box. Variety and change are not always so bad. I say give it a shot, if it doesn't work then nix it. But don't condem it just because it's something new. It seems that tennis is in a bit of a panic mode. Gimmicks like Hawkeye, on-court coaching, and you could say RR's are a gimmick too, are being brought out almost monthy. The Sunday starts are a good idea, and getting rid of 3 of 5 set finals is also a good move.

nobama
08-27-2006, 04:08 AM
The round robin idea is absolutely disgusting and idiotic..
its just about ok for the Masters Cup but not a whole lot of the other small events....when a player loses, that is it.. he should be out, its one thing to wanna see Fed/Rafa at least play 3 times (btw does this guy know that Fed/rafa are in the final at least every other week for the last few years anyway) but do people also wanna see O.Marach or S.Gruel 3 times as well (no offence marach and gruel fans :p).

your also bound to get alot of situations where a player goes out of the group by virtue of more games won/lost ratio, meaningless matches and shit like that.

terrible terrible idea.Yes it's a horrible idea. And I cannot belive the top players would support this. I can understand why lower ranked players would be pissed. What chance do they have in the more high profile events?


:lol:
as a fedtard i shouldnt laugh at that .... but what can i say :oShow me a quote after Roger's Cincy loss where he blamed it on being tired. Seems to me the people blaming it on tiredness were some people here.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:09 AM
It's ridiculous thinking. The whole point of the TMC is that it's the 8 best players in the world, therefore it makes sense to give the public as many looks as possible at the top men and to allow the two best players in the field to work their way into the final, hopefully, by giving them another chance to atone for an early defeat. In a regular tournament where the first match is between players with wildly disparate rankings, it should be every man for himself.

Imagine being the "journeyman" who defeats Federer in a nearly three-hour epic, the best victory of his career.... then he loses his next two matches, Federer wins his next two, and it was all completely meaningless. You beat him, but you didn't eliminate him and you didn't progress yourself either. It's no wonder the lower-ranked players aren't dancing in the aisles at this development.I couldn't agree more.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:10 AM
Oh, yeah, thought of something...NOW we understand why the Tursunov blog was revealed today. It's like sugar in the medicine: Yeah, the ATP announced the implementation of a terrible idea today, but they also announced a good one, so we don't totally despise them, because they got one (lonely) thing right.

Edit: Or that's just my conspiracy theory streak showing. ;) :p

As much as we all love Dima's comic genius, if that's what is intended to sweeten the deal then it's one of the least satisfying placebos I can think of.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:10 AM
Well, I was trying to be sarcastic/funny :pbut you are right, that is what is :o
Roger "Okay, I won one, give me another five weeks off" Federer see, another.
:o

anyhow, during queens club i seen this Étienne de Villiers doing an interview and thought he was ok for tennis, little did i know the ultimate arseclown that lay beneath.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:10 AM
I have always been against the round robin idea since it first came out a few months ago. I think it's really unfair to the lower ranked players and if some people think that tennis is already boring NOW with Roger and Rafa winning everything it is just going to get more and more boring when not one guy needs to beat Roger to get him out of a tournament but 2 or 3. :rolleyes:

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:11 AM
Horrible idea to introduce more RR events. It's exciting when the format is used at the TMC and HC because they feature mostly top players. Sometimes, when draws come out, there might be regions clustered with Qs/LLs. It might jolly well happen with a few of the RR groups too. :shrug:

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:12 AM
It's ridiculous thinking. The whole point of the TMC is that it's the 8 best players in the world, therefore it makes sense to give the public as many looks as possible at the top men and to allow the two best players in the field to work their way into the final, hopefully, by giving them another chance to atone for an early defeat. In a regular tournament where the first match is between players with wildly disparate rankings, it should be every man for himself.

Imagine being the "journeyman" who defeats Federer in a nearly three-hour epic, the best victory of his career.... then he loses his next two matches, Federer wins his next two, and it was all completely meaningless. You beat him, but you didn't eliminate him and you didn't progress yourself either. It's no wonder the lower-ranked players aren't dancing in the aisles at this development.

Exactly. :yeah:

nobama
08-27-2006, 04:12 AM
I don't mind the occassional round robin event. I've seen it used in the Champions Tour and it works there. Not every event will be a RR. For the sport to grow sometimes you need to think outside the box. Variety and change are not always so bad. I say give it a shot, if it doesn't work then nix it. But don't condem it just because it's something new. It seems that tennis is in a bit of a panic mode. Gimmicks like Hawkeye, on-court coaching, and you could say RR's are a gimmick too, are being brought out almost monthy. The Sunday starts are a good idea, and getting rid of 3 of 5 set finals is also a good move.It's not something new. It's used in the Masters Cup which works well for that event. But not on the regular tour. Explain how this is good for the sport as a whole, not just the top players.

case
08-27-2006, 04:12 AM
i must be missing something. Why would the atp support this nonsense?
as escude says would we also have to sit through matches of top players against not so top players.
personally i dont like the majors for that reason. the first week with almost no exception is boring. the matches are uneven and very predictable. i always feel sorry for the player who loses before they ever step on the court.
:lol: was gasquet the only player who was against this????
:lol: were fed and nadal the only players for it????

Foosimoo
08-27-2006, 04:13 AM
Wow, this RR idea is the stupidest thing the ATP can do. :rolleyes:

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:14 AM
The round robin idea is absolutely disgusting and idiotic..
its just about ok for the Masters Cup but not a whole lot of the other small events....when a player loses, that is it.. he should be out, its one thing to wanna see Fed/Rafa at least play 3 times (btw does this guy know that Fed/rafa are in the final at least every other week for the last few years anyway) but do people also wanna see O.Marach or S.Gruel 3 times as well (no offence marach and gruel fans :p).

your also bound to get alot of situations where a player goes out of the group by virtue of more games won/lost ratio, meaningless matches and shit like that.

terrible terrible idea.


Agreed.

El Legenda
08-27-2006, 04:15 AM
RR will be at smaller events and when they see that its sucks..it will be back to normal in 2008

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:15 AM
A few important people were definetely out back taking a piss when the amateurs came up with this round robin idea.
probably right around the same time that they decided that head to head stats dont include wins in challengers anymore on the ATP site.

Imagine being the "journeyman" who defeats Federer in a nearly three-hour epic, the best victory of his career.... then he loses his next two matches, Federer wins his next two, and it was all completely meaningless. You beat him, but you didn't eliminate him and you didn't progress yourself either. It's no wonder the lower-ranked players aren't dancing in the aisles at this development.Yep, surely this wont happen, or its an april fools joke by the ATP........ a good few months late.

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:15 AM
As much as we all love Dima's comic genius, if that's what is intended to sweeten the deal then it's one of the least satisfying placebos I can think of.I was being facetious, alluding to someone else's post about the timing, theorizing that they deliberately had a boring blog lead up to it to make it seem better. Anyway, to your post, I agree completely.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:17 AM
i must be missing something. Why would the atp support this nonsense?
as escude says would we also have to sit through matches of top players against not so top players.
personally i dont like the majors for that reason. the first week with almost no exception is boring. the matches are uneven and very predictable. i always feel sorry for the player who loses before they ever step on the court.
:lol: was gasquet the only player who was against this????
:lol: were fed and nadal the only players for it????

I disagree about the majors, I find the first week of Slams the most exciting of all since you see so many encounters between players with gaps in ability but also between those who are very evenly matched. I like the fact that the top players have to prove themselves for three out of five sets even against much weaker opposition, it can be interesting if they drop a set out of nowhere or if you get great entertainment like Federer v Santoro last year, even though it was straight sets. The one good thing about these proposals is that they don't affect the Slams as of yet, though we'll probably reach that point somewhere down the road.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:17 AM
:lol: was gasquet the only player who was against this????yeah i also find that hard to believe.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:18 AM
I was being facetious, alluding to someone else's post about the timing, theorizing that they deliberately had a boring blog lead up to it to make it seem better. Anyway, to your post, I agree completely.

I know you were being facetious, but I'd never put it past the ATP. ;)

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:19 AM
I know you were being facetious, but I'd never put it past the ATP. ;):lol: They're obviously not thinking clearly, so who knows, really?

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:22 AM
yeah i also find that hard to believe.

Selective sampling of the players' opinions by the article. I mean, Federer and Nadal are for the idea and erm, Gasquet is against it. Right...

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:22 AM
when was the last time Federer or Nadal, even Roddick or Nalbandian played a $350,000 tournament?
i didnt mention Ljubicic as i know he loves his Chennai, Zagreb type events.
:p

nobama
08-27-2006, 04:23 AM
Exactly. It's the small draw and the narrow rankings field that makes round-robin feasible at the TMC.

If they ATP is so worried about the money that tournaments lose when a big name loses early, they should instead mandate that first-round losers seeded #20 or higher and second round losers seeded #10 or higher must stay at the tournament for at least two more days attending media/press/promotional/hit-and-giggles events. :angel:The ATP should be more concerned about promoting more than just the top players. I'd be pissed if I beat Fed early in a tournament but he's still the one getting all the attention.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:23 AM
yeah i also find that hard to believe.I bet everything I own that a majority of players are against it, at least the ones who are thinking about it rationally. But the ATP is not gonna tell us about all of them :lol:

Hopefully lots of players will be asked about it in their press conferences during the USO.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:25 AM
Am I right in saying that players aren't allowed to criticise the ATP openly in their interviews? Escude was spot on when he likened it to the Mafia a few years ago (not you, Mikey :p ).

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:25 AM
I bet everything I own that a majority of players are against it, at least the ones who are thinking about it rationally. But the ATP is not gonna tell us about all of them :lol:

Hopefully lots of players will be asked about it in their press conferences during the USO.


If Djokovic actually has another fan chat tomorrow, I'll ask him what he thinks about it myself.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:26 AM
It's not something new. It's used in the Masters Cup which works well for that event. But not on the regular tour. Explain how this is good for the sport as a whole, not just the top players.

Lower ranked players will get to play more matches as well--that's a plus. It will expose these players to a wider audience. As it is now most fans only know the top ranked players. A RR format will let the fans see lower ranked players more often and that is as good as seeing the higher ranked players. Yes the MAsters Cup is a RR event but it is new to use a RR format for a larger field of players. If a RR was so bad the MC would not have used it for so many years now would they? I imagine these RR events will be spread throughout the calender and therefore make them somewhat special events and may peak fan interest. During many weeks of the year there are 3 ATP events going on around the world at the same time, not to mention a half dozen challenger and futures events. What's so bad about once in a while having having one of them be a RR? The World Cup for example is widely popular and uses a pool RR format for the early rounds. It's just too easy to criticize something before you see it in practice.

Merton
08-27-2006, 04:27 AM
A terrible idea, it benefits the top players protecting them from the occasional bad day amd penalizes outsiders who are unlikely to advance even if they score a big early upset since they will need to back up the result immediately. Therefore, wide implementation of the RR system would limit the mobility at the top of the game and make more difficult the emergence of challengers to the top players.

njnetswill
08-27-2006, 04:28 AM
Round Robin? :o

These are not entry level junior events. :mad:

Are these plans already finalized?!

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:30 AM
I bet everything I own that a majority of players are against it, at least the ones who are thinking about it rationally. But the ATP is not gonna tell us about all of them :lol:

Hopefully lots of players will be asked about it in their press conferences during the USO.

The ATP has a player counsel with player representatives. Players from all the different tiers of ranking are represented. They have a say in what the ATP does.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:31 AM
Lower ranked players will get to play more matches as well--that's a plus. It will expose these players to a wider audience. As it is now most fans only know the top ranked players. A RR format will let the fans see lower ranked players more often and that is as good as seeing the higher ranked players. Yes the MAsters Cup is a RR event but it is new to use a RR format for a larger field of players. If a RR was so bad the MC would not have used it for so many years now would they? I imagine these RR events will be spread throughout the calender and therefore make them somewhat special events and may peak fan interest. During many weeks of the year there are 3 ATP events going on around the world at the same time. What's so bad about once in a while having having one of them be a RR? The World Cup for example is widely popular and uses a pool RR format for the early rounds. It's just too easy to criticize something before you see it in practice.
It's different for the MC though because theoretically there you have the top 8 and they should be fairly evenly matched, so it's logical to have them keep duking it out against each other to force the cream to rise. But this would make it nearly impossible to knock out the top consistent players who could get the bad day, the transition day, etc, out of their system. They'll practically never lose. I can't see a possible way that this could work out well.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:32 AM
True, that's been a big pet peeve of mine - once they find someone who's popular, they tend to run with it instead of making proper efforts to promote lower-ranked/lesser-known players. In a sense this round-robin b.s. is just another offshoot of that.

It's the same kind of softly softly approach adopted by Hollywood executives - find something that sells and stick rigidly to it without being brave enough to go in a different direction.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:32 AM
The ATP has a player counsel with player representatives. Players from all the different tiers of ranking are represented. They have a say in what the ATP does.oh please, the doubles players had to sue in federal court before they got listened to. That's BS and everyone knows it.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:33 AM
Show me a quote after Roger's Cincy loss where he blamed it on being tired. Seems to me the people blaming it on tiredness were some people here.He never used the exact words "im tired" but to say things like "winning 2 TMS events back to back is something of the impossible" and "12 matches in 13 days" "sometimes its ok to lose" "i hopes to win a few rounds, i didnt expect to win here" (i know im a bit off with some of those quotes exactly but its near enough) hardly sounded good.
especially after a 5 week rest.
and also forgetting that "impossible acchievment" was done by Roddick only a few years ago.

and now he is supporting this mad idea as well.
and cut his hair even shorter?

get your shit together Fed.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:34 AM
This would also mean the end of bye. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:35 AM
Lower ranked players will get to play more matches as well--that's a plus. It will expose these players to a wider audience. As it is now most fans only know the top ranked players. A RR format will let the fans see lower ranked players more often and that is as good as seeing the higher ranked players.

Yes the MAsters Cup is a RR event but it is new to use a RR format for a larger field of players. If a RR was so bad the MC would not have used it for so many years now would they? I imagine these RR events will be spread throughout the calender and therefore make them somewhat special events and may peak fan interest. During many weeks of the year there are 3 ATP events going on around the world at the same time. What's so bad about once in a while having having one of them be a RR? The World Cup for example is widely popular and uses a pool RR format for the early rounds. It's just too easy to criticize something before you see it in practice.

Correction. It will give fans more opportunities to see the lower-ranked players. That they will actually take advantage of these opportunities is highly doubtful. The lower-ranked players will probably be scheduled on the outside courts and their matches will still be poorly attended. How is that an improvement?

Why the RR format works for the TMC has already been explained above and some of those reasons apply for the World Cup as well.

Merton
08-27-2006, 04:36 AM
The next logical step for the ATP, according to their logic, will be to organize "Federer-Nadal weeks" with the players facing each other 5 times over 1 week.

Fee
08-27-2006, 04:37 AM
Wait, the tournament directors are supporting the RR format, which will force them to cover expenses for more players over more days? I have a hard time believing that.

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:37 AM
This would also mean the end of bye. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN.OMG you're right. :eek: Save the bye! Save the bye!

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:38 AM
Am I right in saying that players aren't allowed to criticise the ATP openly in their interviews? Escude was spot on when he likened it to the Mafia a few years ago (not you, Mikey :p ).yeah, and good old Nico said it as it was.
ATP do come up with some moments of madness like this...
what about trying to fine hewitt hundreds of thousands for not giving an interview in Cincinnati a few years ago.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:39 AM
The next logical step for the ATP, according to their logic, will be to organize "Federer-Nadal weeks" with the players facing each other 5 times over 1 week.

Nope, just staged contests about four or five times a year, with Federer trash-talking Nadal at the weigh-in about his uncle's alleged coaching and starting a fight for no good reason. Then he comes on to the court under a neon spotlight in the blue shorts, Nadal in the red, and they have at each other with occasional flashes of tennis.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:39 AM
It's different for the MC though because theoretically there you have the top 8 and they should be fairly evenly matched, so it's logical to have them keep duking it out against each other to force the cream to rise. But this would make it nearly impossible to knock out the top consistent players who could get the bad day, the transition day, etc, out of their system. They'll practically never lose. I can't see a possible way that this could work out well.

A top player having a bad day and losing one RR match may be enough to keep him from advancing to the next level. And even if he does advance as a second place finisher in his pool he will go into a differnet bracket of the elimination draw than the player who finished first in the pool. Therefore they may not meet again until the finals. I see nothing unfair about that.

Johnny Groove
08-27-2006, 04:39 AM
Good God, the ATP is such a joke. :rolleyes: :o

I really wish that De Villears guys and all the other idiots running this gig could come to MTF and see what the true fans really think.

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:40 AM
The next logical step for the ATP, according to their logic, will be to organize "Federer-Nadal weeks" with the players facing each other 5 times over 1 week.

And since only their views matter, the establishment of a two-player ranking system will follow!

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:40 AM
The next logical step for the ATP, according to their logic, will be to organize "Federer-Nadal weeks" with the players facing each other 5 times over 1 week.:spit: Maybe they'll finally get over their opening-set nerves? Yep, what's unofficially the Roger-Rafa show is well on its way to becoming the official Roger-Rafa show.

I'm not saying there won't be *any* benefits to the RR system, I'm just not convinced that they outweigh the negatives or that the argumentation is sound.

Dusk Soldier
08-27-2006, 04:41 AM
I made a post about this the last time it was brought up but I'm to lazy to look for it. I just don't get why everyone thinks the round robin idea is stupid.

I don't see how a player going to a tournament where he is garunteed several matches as
opposed to one could see RR as a bad thing.

Merton
08-27-2006, 04:42 AM
Nope, just staged contests about four or five times a year, with Federer trash-talking Nadal at the weigh-in about his uncle's alleged coaching and starting a fight for no good reason. Then he comes on to the court under a neon spotlight in the blue shorts, Nadal in the red, and they have at each other with occasional flashes of tennis.

I hope they are not following this forum, what you say is consistent with the idea that tennis belongs to the entertainment business.

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:42 AM
Good God, the ATP is such a joke. :rolleyes: :o

I really wish that De Villears guys and all the other idiots running this gig could come to MTF and see what the true fans really think.

It's shocking to see that MTF posters have more sense that the ATP executives. :lol:

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:42 AM
I don't see how a player going to a tournament where he is garunteed several matches as
opposed to one could see RR as a bad thing.Because it would make great surprise semifinalists/finalists/tourney winners almost extinct, and I think that'd be really sad.


:topic: When's the last time this many people on MTF completely agree on something??????????

El Legenda
08-27-2006, 04:42 AM
END OF BYE!?!?!?!? :sad: :mad: :armed: F*CK U ATP :rolls:


does the ATP want Roger to win every event he enters....what are the chances of Roger losing twice in a week..when he lost 4 times last year.

andyroxmysox12191
08-27-2006, 04:43 AM
This is the biggest bull I've ever heard of. I hope they go through this and see how crappy their idea is and fall flat on their face. This idea will never work. And it's supposed to decrease "wear and tear" on players? Please. Get your act together ATP.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:44 AM
I made a post about this the last time it was brought up but I'm to lazy to look for it. I just don't get why everyone thinks the round robin idea is stupid.

I don't see how a player going to a tournament where he is garunteed several matches as
opposed to one could see RR as a bad thing.

For a player with a high degree of confidence and good form, playing three matches to advance one round will be a chore; for a player with a low degree of confidence and bad form, it will be an opportunity to be humiliated three times instead of one. Very few will fit into the third category of players who will suddenly improve after one bad match. We're not talking about a Top 8 player who can swiftly rebound from a defeat, more likely someone in the 50-100 range.

El Legenda
08-27-2006, 04:44 AM
where is the ATP office at? lets go kick their ass.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:44 AM
Correction. It will give fans more opportunities to see the lower-ranked players. That they will actually take advantage of these opportunities is highly doubtful. The lower-ranked players will probably be scheduled on the outside courts and their matches will still be poorly attended. How is that an improvement?

Why the RR format works for the TMC has already been explained above and some of those reasons apply for the World Cup as well.

Lower ranked players play on outside courts now. The round robin pools will not be comprised of all lower ranked players but a mix of higher and lower ranked players giving them more chances to play on the show courts.

nobama
08-27-2006, 04:45 AM
Lower ranked players will get to play more matches as well--that's a plus. It will expose these players to a wider audience. As it is now most fans only know the top ranked players. A RR format will let the fans see lower ranked players more often and that is as good as seeing the higher ranked players. Yes the MAsters Cup is a RR event but it is new to use a RR format for a larger field of players. If a RR was so bad the MC would not have used it for so many years now would they? I imagine these RR events will be spread throughout the calender and therefore make them somewhat special events and may peak fan interest. During many weeks of the year there are 3 ATP events going on around the world at the same time, not to mention a half dozen challenger and futures events. What's so bad about once in a while having having one of them be a RR? The World Cup for example is widely popular and uses a pool RR format for the early rounds. It's just too easy to criticize something before you see it in practice.Seems obvious to me the whole point behind this is to ensure the top players go deep and/or win every event they play. Ok you might see lower ranked players more but the chances of them going deep and winning an event are less. It's highly unlikely that a top player like Fed or Nadal would get knoked out of a tournament in a RR format.

Johnny Groove
08-27-2006, 04:45 AM
:topic: When's the last time this many people on MTF completely agree on something??????????

:eek: Its like every politician in Washington DC agreeing!!!! Its rare and nerve-rackingly crazy!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:46 AM
I don't see how a player going to a tournament where he is garunteed several matches as
opposed to one could see RR as a bad thing.well just wait and see until that players scores a magnificant victory over a top 4 player then crashes out on games won/lost ratio the next day and has nothing to show for it.
he'll soon change his tune.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:50 AM
Because it would make great surprise semifinalists/finalists/tourney winners almost extinct, and I think that'd be really sad.


:topic: When's the last time this many people on MTF completely agree on something??????????


So true. :lol:

Dusk Soldier
08-27-2006, 04:50 AM
Imagine being the "journeyman" who defeats Federer in a nearly three-hour epic, the best victory of his career.... then he loses his next two matches, Federer wins his next two, and it was all completely meaningless. You beat him, but you didn't eliminate him and you didn't progress yourself either. It's no wonder the lower-ranked players aren't dancing in the aisles at this development.Yeah see here is the whole fallacy of this logic. Why would a player who can't win three matches in a row deserve to advance deep in a tournament. :shrug: Just because he took out the top seed, he should automatically advance to the final? That doesn't make any sense.

That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.

You do realize that with the current system said "journeyman" would be out after the first loss. With RR he at least gets a second chance to back up his stunning win.

And it's not like players never score huge upsets only to crash out in the next round. *cough*cough*GillesMuller*cough*cough*

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 04:50 AM
Lower ranked players play on outside courts now. The round robin pools will not be comprised of all lower ranked players but a mix of higher and lower ranked players giving them more chances to play on the show courts.

Keeping in mind that the number of slots available on the show courts will not change drastically.

case
08-27-2006, 04:51 AM
Lower ranked players play on outside courts now. The round robin pools will not be comprised of all lower ranked players but a mix of higher and lower ranked players giving them more chances to play on the show courts.

:haha: that's a scary thought. more chances for bad players to show us that they really should have become an accountant

as tired as i get about nonstop talking and seeing of fed and nadal
(THERE ARE OTHER PLAYERS of note out there)
i really do like watching GOOD tennis.

Dusk Soldier
08-27-2006, 04:53 AM
A terrible idea, it benefits the top players protecting them from the occasional bad day amd penalizes outsiders who are unlikely to advance even if they score a big early upset since they will need to back up the result immediately.They've always had to back up upsets with wins. :wavey:
.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 04:53 AM
You can see the problems when its a 4 man group and the top two have won both matches and the bottom 2 have lost both and are out.... then play each other in the 3rd series of matches, totally meaningless and useless (1-6 1-6 tanks galore id suspect)... apart from anything, making the top 2 even more tired before the K.O stages kick in.

and its not like davis cup where you can cancel the 'dead rubber' id presume.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 04:53 AM
That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.But one of the best things about tennis - I think many fans agree - is that guy who makes the surprise run to win or make the finals of an event. This would make things like that almost extinct. the point is that now the top players are a lot more safe. They can lose a lot more and still end up winning the tournaments. The point of winning a tennis tournament is that you're the one person who didn't lose when the week is over.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:53 AM
Yeah see here is the whole fallacy of this logic. Why would a player who can't win three matches in a row deserve to advance deep in a tournament. :shrug: Just because he took out the top seed, he should automatically advance to the final? That doesn't make any sense.

That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.

You do realize that with the current system said "journeyman" would be out after the first loss. With RR he at least gets a second chance to back up his stunning win.

And it's not like players never score huge upsets only to crash out in the next round. *cough*cough*GillesMuller*cough*cough*

Exactly

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 04:55 AM
Yeah see here is the whole fallacy of this logic. Why would a player who can't win three matches in a row deserve to advance deep in a tournament. :shrug: Just because he took out the top seed, he should automatically advance to the final? That doesn't make any sense.

That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.

You do realize that with the current system said "journeyman" would be out after the first loss. With RR he at least gets a second chance to back up his stunning win.

And it's not like players never score huge upsets only to crash out in the next round. *cough*cough*GillesMuller*cough*cough*

Not the final, but he deserves to advance to the next round after winning his first match. And perhaps more importantly, the guy who lost doesn't deserve another chance to get to the next round. You lose, you should go home, and the victor should be able to immediately enjoy the feeling of having eliminated his opponent fair and square.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 04:56 AM
You can see the problems when its a 4 man group and the top two have won both matches and the bottom 2 have lost both and are out.... then play each other in the 3rd series of matches, totally meaningless and useless (1-6 1-6 tanks galore id suspect)... apart from anything, making the top 2 even more tired before the K.O stages kick in.

and its not like davis cup where you can cancel the 'dead rubber' id presume.

RR formats, like the MC, pay prize money for each victory in the pool. So a player who has lost his previous matches still has incentive to play hard in his final pool match as every match still counts toward his paycheck.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:57 AM
Yeah see here is the whole fallacy of this logic. Why would a player who can't win three matches in a row deserve to advance deep in a tournament. :shrug: Just because he took out the top seed, he should automatically advance to the final? That doesn't make any sense.

That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.

You do realize that with the current system said "journeyman" would be out after the first loss. With RR he at least gets a second chance to back up his stunning win.

And it's not like players never score huge upsets only to crash out in the next round. *cough*cough*GillesMuller*cough*cough*


Why should people who lose at all be able to advance to the next round? Why should someone who wins 2/3 of their matches be allowed to continue? They lost a match. For me that is the end for them and I don't care if their name is Roger Federer or Viktor Troicki.

nobama
08-27-2006, 04:58 AM
Yeah see here is the whole fallacy of this logic. Why would a player who can't win three matches in a row deserve to advance deep in a tournament. :shrug: Just because he took out the top seed, he should automatically advance to the final? That doesn't make any sense.

That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.

You do realize that with the current system said "journeyman" would be out after the first loss. With RR he at least gets a second chance to back up his stunning win.

And it's not like players never score huge upsets only to crash out in the next round. *cough*cough*GillesMuller*cough*cough*But in RR format the better/more consistent players also get a second chance and it's more likely at the end of the day that they will come out on top. So how do lower ranked players improve their ranking.

atheneglaukopis
08-27-2006, 04:58 AM
:haha: I think it's time for a group hug! :drool:
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!

TenHound
08-27-2006, 04:58 AM
And the 2 losing players in each RR segment of 3 players will Mud-Wrestle for 2nd vs. 3rd money; while 3rd & 4th place money will be decided by whoever serves the most balls into the mouth of the lion, caged in the center promenade. :)

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 04:58 AM
RR formats, like the MC, pay prize money for each victory in the pool. So a player who has lost his previous matches still has incentive to play hard in his final pool match as every match still counts toward his paycheck.


And do you think Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal cares about that tiny bit of cash? It means everything to a lower ranked player, sure.. but the top players won't play their hardest in a meaningless match just for a few extra thousand dollars. That's pocket change for them. Instead they can tank and rest up for the "real" matches.

Flibbertigibbet
08-27-2006, 04:58 AM
Any sensible entity with knowledge of the game, including MTF, knows this - De Villiers' Mickey Mouse thought process shouldn't be part of tennis.

shotgun
08-27-2006, 04:59 AM
This RR idea is total nonsense, and probably won't work out.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 05:00 AM
They've always had to back up upsets with wins. :wavey:
.


Yes, but at least they've advanced to the next round before having to do so.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:03 AM
But in RR format the better/more consistent players also get a second chance and it's more likely at the end of the day that they will come out on top. I don't think this will improve the chances of lower ranked players winning a tournament.

I don't think anyone said this was being brought about to improve the chances of lower ranked players winning a tournament. As it is now the chances of a low ranked player winning a tournament is slim at best. It is a way to let fans see more matches. Everyone seems to harp on the fact that the top players get a second chance, well the lower ranked players for once will get a second chance as well.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 05:03 AM
Why would Fed and Rafa support this anyway.... its not like they have trouble breezing through their first rounds at nearly every event anyway.
so now you play 2 or 3 matches to get to the next stage instead of 1, yeah.... great thinking chaps :silly:
the lesser players might prefer it more in some ways, they would see it as getting 2 chances to go on in a tournament compared to the usual 1st round defeat and pack your bags for next week scenario.... something that the #75-100th ranked type players are used to most weeks they get into a main draw.
but obviously that is wrong, when you lose.... you should be gone!

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 05:04 AM
I don't think anyone said this was being brought about to improve the chances of lower ranked players winning a tournament. As it is now the chances of a low ranked player winning a tournament is slim at best. It is a way to let fans see more matches. Everyone seems to harp on the fact that the top players get a second chance, well the lower ranked players for once will get a second chance as well.The article says it was brought about to ensure that top players will play more matches.... which is assuming there is a widespread problem of top players losing early now. And that makes no sense, considering a player would not BE a top player if he lost early that often. The entire logic it's based on is completely flawed.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:04 AM
Deb, you're right - it would drain the Win or Die drama from tennis.

Next to go is the scoring system....

Somebody suggest that ATP etc. should stop by here to see what actual tennis fans think. You're missing the point entirely. They do not give a damn about us. They care about the mythical circus lover who doesn't know or care enough about tennis to watch it now.
THEY EXPLICITLY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT TENNIS ANYMORE - Anyone who did wouldn't bring in some jerkola from Disney, obviously. THEY CARE ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY CAN MAKE SERVING UP SCHLOCK TO AS MANY KNOW NOTHINGS AS THEY CAN ATTRACT. It follows that only fools among us will watch, but that's fine w/them.

NYCtennisfan
08-27-2006, 05:05 AM
Hmmm....

If they are indeed going to go ahead with this RR idea (which has been in the works for some time now), it will devalue a lot of results from the past. The most difficult thing about playing on the tour has always been that you have to bring it every single day, because nobody was going to give you anything. The RR format takes away from that. It's funny how they say it's not a revolutionary change when in fact adopting RR formats is the most revolutionary thing they could do outside of altering the scoring system or the dimensions of the court.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 05:05 AM
I don't think anyone said this was being brought about to improve the chances of lower ranked players winning a tournament. As it is now the chances of a low ranked player winning a tournament is slim at best. It is a way to let fans see more matches. Everyone seems to harp on the fact that the top players get a second chance, well the lower ranked players for once will get a second chance as well.


I think that is exactly what no one likes. Why does anyone deserve a second chance at all? We like first round upsets, a loss is a loss, good-bye.

Dusk Soldier
08-27-2006, 05:08 AM
So how do lower ranked players improve their ranking.I'm sure they'll give points to players who don't advance out of their brackets too. To do other wise would just be silly.

Make one win comparable to a first round win. Two wins comparable to a second round win. etc. Three losses gives the same amount of points as a first round loss. It's not rocket science.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:09 AM
The article says it was brought about to ensure that top players will play more matches.... which is assuming there is a widespread problem of top players losing early now. And that makes no sense, considering a player would not BE a top player if he lost early that often. The entire logic it's based on is completely flawed.

It is? What about the fan who wanted to see Federer or Nadal play in Cincy where they both lost early? NEWS FLASH!! The top marquee players do lose sometimes.

nobama
08-27-2006, 05:10 AM
I don't think anyone said this was being brought about to improve the chances of lower ranked players winning a tournament. As it is now the chances of a low ranked player winning a tournament is slim at best. It is a way to let fans see more matches. Everyone seems to harp on the fact that the top players get a second chance, well the lower ranked players for once will get a second chance as well.No what I meant was it's even worse now for lower ranked players. The ATP only wants this to ensure the biggest cash cows for tournaments (e.g. Federer, Nadal) are still in a tournament even if they get beat.

You talk about a second chance....in the current format if a lower ranked player beats a top player they advance to the next round. In the RR format yes they get a second chance, but they haven't advanced and the top player also gets a second chance. Now who is more likely to come out on top in the end?

Fee
08-27-2006, 05:10 AM
If Roger and Rafa have to play more matches each week, it means they will play fewer weeks of the year, so in the end fewer tournaments will actually get to see them. This will probalby hurt the smaller tournaments in the long run, when they won't be able to get any big names to play. I can't see Andy playing San Jose, Memphis, Las Vegas and Davis Cup anymore.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 05:11 AM
It is? What about the fan who wanted to see Federer or Nadal play in Cincy where they both lost early? NEWS FLASH!! The top marquee players do lose sometimes.Yes, that happened ONCE in approximately TWO YEARS. Surely, that means it's a big enough problem such that it should require RADICALLY changing the game??????????? Sorry, no way.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:12 AM
I think the point of it is to allow them to sell more advance tickets, since losing doesn't disqualify a player, they can theoretically announce schedules way in advance. The downside is that they have to pay players hotel & food to stick around for extra days. Guess they ran the calculation & figured it pays...

Beforehand
08-27-2006, 05:16 AM
....

This has got to be the worst idea ever.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:17 AM
If Roger and Rafa have to play more matches each week, it means they will play fewer weeks of the year, so in the end fewer tournaments will actually get to see them. This will probalby hurt the smaller tournaments in the long run, when they won't be able to get any big names to play. I can't see Andy playing San Jose, Memphis, Las Vegas and Davis Cup anymore.

As I posted in the ATP ranking thread the rankings are based on a player playing a minimum of 18 events a year. If they play less than that they are penalized in the rankings. Guess how many tournaments both Federer and Nadal have played in the last 12 months. 18. So they won't be able to play less than they already are.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 05:17 AM
Yes, that happened ONCE in approximately TWO YEARS. Surely, that means it's a big enough problem such that it should require RADICALLY changing the game??????????? Sorry, no way.

And what is the reason that Federer gave, and usually gives, for his poor efforts in Cincy, ridiculous though it understandably seems to you and many others? Back-to-back Masters Series, or in other words the calendar as a whole.... the real issue, which the article notes was completely skipped over by De Villiers because reforming it involved treading on too many toes.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 05:18 AM
That's not how tennis works. You have to win matches to win the tournament. RR doesn't change that.yeah exactly win matches..... not lose them.
that is why RR is daft idea.
the Masters cup is the only event this should happen - if nothing its a nice tradition by now.
you have situations like from previous years when a player has beaten someone in the final, that he had lost to earlier in the week :lol: (Nalbi - Fed last year), (Kuerten - Agassi in 2000), (Sampras - Agassi in 1999)... infact how do you like this one.... in 99 agassi beat sampras 6-2 6-2 in the group then was thrashed in the final by him in three straight sets a few days later :rolls:

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:18 AM
Yes, that happened ONCE in approximately TWO YEARS. Surely, that means it's a big enough problem such that it should require RADICALLY changing the game??????????? Sorry, no way.

Rafa lost early the week before as well.

Regenbogen
08-27-2006, 05:19 AM
How many tournaments would be like this?

And I hate the idea. Totally. I agree with everything everyone said who was against it :mad:

Dusk Soldier
08-27-2006, 05:19 AM
It is? What about the fan who wanted to see Federer or Nadal play in Cincy where they both lost early? NEWS FLASH!! The top marquee players do lose sometimes.
:yeah:
And on the same note, what about the fan that wants to see someone like Fabrice Santoro Who could be packing his bags in a day if he gets a tough draw.

Not everyone goes to see top ten players. Everyone gets more chances to see their favourites.

Fee
08-27-2006, 05:20 AM
As I posted in the ATP ranking thread the rankings are based on a player playing a minimum of 18 events a year. If they play less than that they are penalized in the rankings. Guess how many tournaments both Federer and Nadal have played in the last 12 months. 18. So they won't be able to play less than they already are.

So they barely cover the minimum, and your number includes both of them skipping mandatory Masters events late last year due to injury. What a luxury for them that their resutls are so good that they can do that and not really be penalized for it. Bet they would be willing to continue taking that chance to look after themselves first.

Sjengster
08-27-2006, 05:21 AM
Rafa lost early the week before as well.

That's his problem. It's not like he lost to a couple of jokers the last two weeks, the people who beat him can be appreciated by crowds as well and would be if the ATP did their job properly.

Merton
08-27-2006, 05:22 AM
:yeah:
And on the same note, what about the fan that wants to see someone like Fabrice Santoro Who could be packing his bags in a day if he gets a tough draw.

Not everyone goes to see top ten players. Everyone gets more chances to see their favourites.

What about injured players coming back on tour? What about players climbing up the rankings? For example, would Gasquet make the semis in Montecarlo last year in an RR format? I doubt it.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 05:22 AM
That's his problem. It's not like he lost to a couple of jokers the last two weeks, the people who beat him can be appreciated by crowds as well and would be if the ATP did their job properly.:worship:



(this thread needs to be printed and framed somewhere.....)

Regenbogen
08-27-2006, 05:23 AM
It is? What about the fan who wanted to see Federer or Nadal play in Cincy where they both lost early? NEWS FLASH!! The top marquee players do lose sometimes.
Quarters[Nadal] isn't really that early...if you want to arrive when there are only four players left, that's your own problem, not a reason for the ATP to screw around with the format

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 05:24 AM
I think the point of it is to allow them to sell more advance tickets, since losing doesn't disqualify a player, they can theoretically announce schedules way in advance.Yep and altho stuff like that is important to tennis it shouldnt affect the sport, tournaments and players... cant go changing things like that after all these years.
great thing to me about 1 v 1 sports like tennis is its all win or out...glory or agony, they cant go messing that up just to make it a money monster business like team sports football/soccer.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 05:25 AM
OMG STOP THE PRESSES! NADAL LOST IN THE QUARTERS OF A HARD COURT EVENT! Oh NO! Now the casual tennis fan might have to actually discover a new player!

Heaven forbid!

nobama
08-27-2006, 05:26 AM
Rafa lost early the week before as well.So what? As far as I could tell the tournament survived just fine without him. After he lost one of the local papers moaned that people would be ditching their Sunday final tickets. From what I could tell the place was packed even though it wasn't the "dream" final everyone wanted. And how often is it that more than one top player exits early?

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:31 AM
Well, if the top players have to play more now, no problem. They'll just implement a timing system - player w/most points after 4 -15min. 1/4's are so some bullshit. We won't be watching anymore, but it works for tv, 'cuz the whole point of tv is to manipulate the viewers emotions/anxieties. Watch pro golf - that's the name of the game. It will destroy tennis, but that's the point - "entertainment" for the masses.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 05:31 AM
Fed :retard:
you do realize that since you hardly ever lose early, this can only be a negative for you.

now we will always see a fed-nadal final, since the chances of nadal actually meeting two of his nemesis' are very slim. And we are gonna see nadal kick your ass more frequently.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:34 AM
Well, hopefully Roger will retire, along w/anyone else w/integrity who can afford to do so.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 05:35 AM
Its all about the money to some...
the wrong person is running the sport when he cant even see such a terrible idea right infront of him.
someone save the ATP and fix the head to head stats again and improve the player profile pictures.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:38 AM
I keep reading that this is "radically changing the sport". Didn't computerized rankings radically change the sport? Didn't the tiebreak radically change the sport? Didn't the rule allowing the chair umpire to over-rule a linesman radically change the sport? Didn't Open Tennis radically change the sport? Hasn't Hawkeye radically changed the sport? Are all of these things bad? I guess I'm less close minded than most and will wait to see how the few RR events next year go before I condem it out of hand.

nobama
08-27-2006, 05:40 AM
Fed :retard:
you do realize that since you hardly ever lose early, this can only be a negative for you.

now we will always see a fed-nadal final, since the chances of nadal actually meeting two of his nemesis' are very slim. And we are gonna see nadal kick your ass more frequently.Something must have happened to his brain when he got that haircut. :o

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 05:40 AM
I keep reading that this is "radically changing the sport". Didn't computerized rankings radically change the sport? Didn't the tiebreak radically change the sport? Didn't the rule allowing the chair umpire to over-rule a linesman radically change the sport? Didn't Open Tennis radically change the sport? Hasn't Hawkeye radically changed the sport? Are all of these things bad? I guess I'm less close minded than most and will wait to see how the few RR events next year go before I condem it out of hand.Those things are all radically good. I was in huge favor of Hawk-eye. I am not in huge favor of this, I think it will ruin the sport. I never thought any of those things would ruin the sport.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:41 AM
Yes, Escude, pro tennis is being driven into the toilet, along w/most everything else. It is devastating.

It never occurred to anyone in power, that half the reason the AA-Pete NYC 1/4 final was so dramatic was 'cuz it was so rare. I've had enough RF-RN matches for a lifetime. Never watch another. Who cares about a tournament in which the random draw has been replaced by a system virtually guaranteed to produce a final of #1 vs. #2.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 05:44 AM
The point of winning a tennis tournament is that you're the one person who didn't lose when the week is over.

:worship: Thank you Deb - that is the essence of tennis and attempting to screw with it is what has gotten all of us real tennis fans :fiery:

I agree 100% that best of 5 finals - especially those at the IS/ISG level - have needed to go for a long time and this year after the Rome final I think everyone sees why the MS events shouldn't have them either - 5 set epics keep the players out of the next week's event.

As for Federer and Nadal - the season is the 2nd half already and neither of them have played 5 "optionals" yet and both missed Hamburg - news flash when they win as many tournaments as they do they don't even need to play the "minimum" required by the ATP.

The RR format just doesn't work - if it's a 32 draw with 8 groups of 4, that's 3 matches for every player, with winners of each of the 8 advancing to the "normal" draw, which would be the QFs. So the winner of the entire tournament would play 3 RR matches and then QFs, SFs, and the final. That's 6 matches in one week! Same as a Masters Series event and 1 more than most IS tournaments. So players would be playing more matches instead of less.

Tanking has always been an issue - I believe I heard Safin actually got fined for tanking once and Gaudio has been repeatedly warned by umps for doing it - but I feel a lot of 'unimportant' RR matches would be very low quality....what's the point of playing if you already know if you've advanced or not?

Tennis is a sport, not an entertainment show. I believe Safin once said if you want to see clowns go to a circus....

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:45 AM
Those things are all radically good. I was in huge favor of Hawk-eye. I am not in huge favor of this, I think it will ruin the sport. I never thought any of those things would ruin the sport.

Those things I listed are used across the board in all tournaments (Hawkeye being less widely available). Round Robin formats will not be used in every tournament. It will not be used at the Slams as they are not governed by the ATP. The proposal is for 20%-30% of tournaments to have a Sunday start. I'd wager fewer than that will be RR's. Not enough to ruin the sport.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 05:46 AM
Something must have happened to his brain when he got that haircut. :o

:haha:

as funny as that is, i believe that etienne ironed out the details a while ago with dre, rafa and safin. they met in some hotel room, if i recall correctly.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 05:49 AM
Those things are all radically good. I was in huge favor of Hawk-eye. I am not in huge favor of this, I think it will ruin the sport. I never thought any of those things would ruin the sport.

other than hawkeye, this unfairly biases the top guys. That is the real problem. None of the other additions bias a player over the other.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 05:51 AM
I keep reading that this is "radically changing the sport". Didn't computerized rankings radically change the sport? Didn't the tiebreak radically change the sport? Didn't the rule allowing the chair umpire to over-rule a linesman radically change the sport? Didn't Open Tennis radically change the sport? Hasn't Hawkeye radically changed the sport? Are all of these things bad? I guess I'm less close minded than most and will wait to see how the few RR events next year go before I condem it out of hand.

Those are big changes I agree with none of them changed the ESSENCE of the game, which the RR would.

Winner = the player who didn't lose a match all week/fortnight.

Honestly, if I were a pro and I won a title after losing a match early in the week I would be too :o to accept the trophy.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 05:51 AM
I keep reading that this is "radically changing the sport". Didn't computerized rankings radically change the sport? Didn't the tiebreak radically change the sport? Didn't the rule allowing the chair umpire to over-rule a linesman radically change the sport? Didn't Open Tennis radically change the sport? Hasn't Hawkeye radically changed the sport? Are all of these things bad? I guess I'm less close minded than most and will wait to see how the few RR events next year go before I condem it out of hand.I dont think any of those things "radically" changed the sport :p
round robin play will start making a mockery of the game, players winning going out a group, players losing going through... too many matches, meaningless encounters. mostly its clear biased towards keeping top players in tournaments at all costs just to sell more tickets and have more tv viewers... close to pre-destined crap, alot of ppl seen it as refreshing that toronto and cincinnati wasnt all Fed v Rafa stories for once this year, the chances of those kinda weeks would be even less with this RR stuff id think, less surprise element.
and 5 years down the line it'll be Murray - Djokovic every week in the finals.
;)

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:51 AM
I don't care if they use it for local jobs, but if they use it for the Masters level tournaments there's nothing left of tennis. They've wrecked the Majors by over-seeding & eliminating completely random draws to virtually guarantee the matches they think will draw the biggest ratings. The only good tournaments left are Masters that aren't b2b, or are the first of b2b...

But I can promise, that far more horrible changes are on the way...just give 'em time.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 05:51 AM
Those things I listed are used across the board in all tournaments (Hawkeye being less widely available). Round Robin formats will not be used in every tournament. It will not be used at the Slams as they are not governed by the ATP. The proposal is for 20%-30% of tournaments to have a Sunday start. I'd wager fewer than that will be RR's. Not enough to ruin the sport.but a Sunday start isn't gonna affect anything. In fact I kind of think that's a good idea. Getting rid of some of the best of 5 finals isn't great, but it's probably not really going to change the outcomes of those matches, and it's very few matches anyway. But as far as I am concerned, even if just one tournament buys into that, it's one tournament where there will be less meaningful upsets, that surprise finalist, etc.

Plus, they will have to revamp the rankings system - if some tournaments are won under one draw system and one under another, how the hell will that work? What a logistical MESS.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:54 AM
Those are big changes I agree with none of them changed the ESSENCE of the game, which the RR would.

Winner = the player who didn't lose a match all week/fortnight.

Honestly, if I were a pro and I won a title after losing a match early in the week I would be too :o to accept the trophy.

Again, those changes I listed are used in all tournmants. Not all tournaments will become RR's. The essence of the game will remain.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 05:56 AM
i guess the bright side is that maybe fat dave will actually win a slam.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 05:56 AM
I was at Roland Garros for the first Sunday start ever - it was fine but they only had matches on the 3 stadium courts and didn't sell any grounds passes. :shrug: Not sure if smaller tournaments would also follow that lead.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 05:57 AM
Deb, I agree they will seriously undermine the drama of tennis matches. But that advances their agenda - next they replace the scoring system to eliminate the boredom they created w/one that's more emotionally manipulative - 4 -15min. 1/4's - most points wins.....

Everything from here on in, will be designed to suck in the most viewers, not enhance the game....They want the schmucks who don't currently watch...

JW10S
08-27-2006, 05:59 AM
but a Sunday start isn't gonna affect anything. In fact I kind of think that's a good idea. Getting rid of some of the best of 5 finals isn't great, but it's probably not really going to change the outcomes of those matches, and it's very few matches anyway. But as far as I am concerned, even if just one tournament buys into that, it's one tournament where there will be less meaningful upsets, that surprise finalist, etc.

Plus, they will have to revamp the rankings system - if some tournaments are won under one draw system and one under another, how the hell will that work? What a logistical MESS.

I'm sure they have accounted for those things. In the current ranking system a player who upsets a top ranked player is awarded bonus points. I'm sure the same will happen should they upset a player in the RR pool regardless of whether or not they advance out of the pool. Again, I see no reason for such a panic.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:00 AM
I could only see players ranked from 75-150 actually wanting to participate in a RR tournament. How the hell is the ATP going to promote that?

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 06:01 AM
In the current ranking system a player who upsets a top ranked player is awarded bonus points. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!


(that was the sound of JW10S's credibility flying out the window, folks.)

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:02 AM
I'm sure they have accounted for those things. In the current ranking system a player who upsets a top ranked player is awarded bonus points. I'm sure the same will happen should they upset a player in the RR pool regardless of whether or not they advance out of the pool. Again, I see no reason for such a panic.

:scratch: I thought bonus points were only the WTA tour.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:03 AM
The main changes needed have always been the schedule...
-no way should rome-hamburg be back to back and same with canada-cincinnati.
also maybe a week more between Roland garros and wimbledon.
-something should be done about 'tactical' injury time outs.
-players should not be warned for throwing or breaking a racquet (unless it endangers someone other than themself) as its good entertainment.
-and ridiculous fines for little things like missing an interview or pulling down your shorts after a long point.

get some real work done ATP.

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:03 AM
Who cares about a tournament in which the random draw has been replaced by a system virtually guaranteed to produce a final of #1 vs. #2.You have no proof of that.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 06:03 AM
:scratch: I thought bonus points were only the WTA tour.Even they did away with it in the past year or two...

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:05 AM
Even they did away with it in the past year or two...

I wasn't sure as I don't really follow WTA. Thanks for the info.

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:07 AM
:scratch: I thought bonus points were only the WTA tour.I think the WTA did away with bonus points this year. :shrug:

ExpectedWinner
08-27-2006, 06:08 AM
Fed :retard:
you do realize that since you hardly ever lose early, this can only be a negative for you.

now we will always see a fed-nadal final, since the chances of nadal actually meeting two of his nemesis' are very slim. And we are gonna see nadal kick your ass more frequently.


Now at 25, and next year closer to 26 it ( not losing early) can change sooner than you think.

As for Federafa finals, most likely they will not enter the same small events (32-48 draw).

For the record: I'm against round robins

TenHound
08-27-2006, 06:08 AM
I agree w/yr. points Escude, except that there is a good case to be made for warning a player for breaking a racquet. Clearly his temper is getting out of control, and they want an escalating system of penalties to help him control it.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:09 AM
In the current ranking system a player who upsets a top ranked player is awarded bonus points.that actually used to happen a few years ago, before the champions race came in, in 2000.

and huge amounts of bonus prize money was handed out at the end of the year to the top players.
sometimes a million dollars plus, like for Thomas Enqvist in 2000... when he finished 9th in the rankings... why, to this day i still dont know.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:10 AM
Now at 25, and next year closer to 26 it ( not losing early) can change sooner than you think.

As for Federafa finals, most likely they will not enter the same small events (32-48 draw).

For the record: I'm against round robins

nadal plays basel and dubai. He may also play tokyo, although this i am not sure.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 06:11 AM
The problem w/the discussion here is with the underlying assumptions. We quaintly assume they want to improve the game. What they want to do is increase profits. Period.

ExpectedWinner
08-27-2006, 06:11 AM
nadal plays basel and dubai. He may also play tokyo, although this i am not sure.

So what? It can be easily changed.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:12 AM
I agree w/yr. points Escude, except that there is a good case to be made for warning a player for breaking a racquet. Clearly his temper is getting out of control, and they want an escalating system of penalties to help him control it.but sometimes you need to give it a good crack to get it all out your system :p
well that worked for Safin a few times at the Aussie in 2005.
i guess the other side to it was in Brighton 2000 when Goran smashed all his and had to retire from the match as he had no racquets left.
lol

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:13 AM
I stand corrected on the bonus points. But the player will surely still get ranking points and prize money for winning the pool match win just as they do on the Champions tour and again I'm sure the ATP have accounted for this.

I still haven't heard how a few Round Robin events will be the death knell of tennis. Will no one show up to watch? Will the news media not cover them? Will none of the pros enter? Will everyone who plays tennis suddenly quit? What?

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 06:13 AM
So what? It can be easily changed.Sure, when we do away with appearance fees and the like.

of course it's all about profit, TenHound.

Of course, what's short-sighted of them is that if they did a little work promoting everyone else, those people could be profitable as well, but that'd be too logical.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:16 AM
So what? It can be easily changed.

are you suggesting they would deliberately avoid each other...? this would only be more :o

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:16 AM
I stand corrected on the bonus points. But the player will surely still get ranking points and prize money for winning the pool match win just as they do on the Champions tour and again I'm sure the ATP have accounted for this.

I still haven't heard how a few Round Robin events will be the death knell of tennis. Will no one show up to watch? Will the news media not cover them? Will none of the pros enter? Will everyone who plays tennis suddenly quit? What?

The public "non fan" will not want to watch players ranked 75-150 whom they have never heard of in a final where both players have already lost once (or possibly even twice) earlier in the week.

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:16 AM
The problem w/the discussion here is with the underlying assumptions. We quaintly assume they want to improve the game. What they want to do is increase profits. Period.Hey they're increasing prize money by 10% which is a good thing. I think they need to find other ways besides ths RR nonesense to increase profits though.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 06:18 AM
Deb, & anyone else who cares to weigh in - in the back of my mind, I strongly suspect that they'd like to turn tennis into a team sport plus Majors & possibly a few other tournaments. I wonder if that's part of the deal w/switching formats to RR. I'm not saying that I expect it to happen in 3 yrs., but a decade perhaps.

Deb, what thinks you? The advantages are huge. They could ram it through under the Think Green Banner - too much travel this way. They'd pay off current tournament directors by giving them the first cut at buying a team.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:18 AM
The public "non fan" will not want to watch players ranked 75-150 whom they have never heard of in a final where both players have already lost once (or possibly even twice) earlier in the week.

How will that happen? Tournaments with players ranked 75-150 are usually Challenger events, no one but true tennis nuts watch those anyway. We're talking about ATP main tour events.

AlexNYR
08-27-2006, 06:19 AM
i dont mind change if done right like tiebreaks, yellow balls instead of white, etc dont mind sunday starts or no best of 5's, but the RR has to be the most moronic thing you can think of doing, short of changing the scoring for singles matches. youll be hard pressed to find a more ass backward idea than this. and for what, to attract a "fan" that only cares about the top players. instead of trying to attract new fans that will leave you when they get bored, how about solidifying your relationship with the real tennis fans, that are just as happy watching the number 50 player play as much as the top 10? count me in as someone who despises a RR system outside the masters cup. someone should be slapped for supporting this idea.

ExpectedWinner
08-27-2006, 06:20 AM
Sure, when we do away with appearance fees and the like.



These two will find appearance fees almost anywhere they want. So far they haven't played a lot of the same optional events. :shrug:

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:20 AM
I don't see Roger or Rafa ever entering a RR event (besides Masters Cup & Davis Cup).

As for the increase in prize money next year, I know for a fact ticket prices for Cincinnati 2007 have been increased.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:20 AM
the nba did something similar...they made first round playoffs best of 7, to increase profits and ensure that the best teams get further. Manipulation in tennis is still not the level it is in other sports.

Calls/non-calls in nba playoff games have been dubious since the dawn of time.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:23 AM
I don't see Roger or Rafa ever entering a RR event (besides Masters Cup & Davis Cup).

As for the increase in prize money next year, I know for a fact ticket prices for Cincinnati 2007 have been increased.

The original article in the post that started this thread stated that both Federer and Nadal were in favor of RR events.

Merton
08-27-2006, 06:24 AM
I still haven't heard how a few Round Robin events will be the death knell of tennis. Will no one show up to watch? Will the news media not cover them? Will none of the pros enter? Will everyone who plays tennis suddenly quit? What?

RR distorts tennis as it increases the chances that the top-ranked players will prevail, since they may lose early and still win. As for your other points, it is not good enough to claim that spectators will show up, media cover the events, etc. That already happens in the current format. You need to argue that the RR format is better than the current format and that is simply not the case.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:24 AM
How will that happen? Tournaments with players ranked 75-150 are usually Challenger events, no one but true tennis nuts watch those anyway. We're talking about ATP main tour events.

Obviously you haven't looked at some of the "Mickey Mouse" IS event entry lists like Newport. I suspect those tournaments are the ones that would become RR.

And trust me, if there are normal tournaments and RR tournaments the same week, any pro ranked 50 and under would enter the normal one, no second thought about it.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 06:24 AM
Deb, & anyone else who cares to weigh in - in the back of my mind, I strongly suspect that they'd like to turn tennis into a team sport plus Majors & possibly a few other tournaments. I wonder if that's part of the deal w/switching formats to RR. I'm not saying that I expect it to happen in 3 yrs., but a decade perhaps.

Deb, what thinks you? The advantages are huge. They could ram it through under the Think Green Banner - too much travel this way. They'd pay off current tournament directors by giving them the first cut at buying a team.I don't know... WTT hasn't really taken off and has been around for quite some time. I'm not sure they'd mess with it THAT much. Hard to say what would happen 10 years down the line.

World Beater, I don't really think this is quite comparable to just making a playoff series best of 7. At least the way the games are won and lost and stuff are essentially the same. There are there things they could do to increase profits without messing with the way the game has been played like this, in a way that could vastly change the outcome and meaning of what it is to win a tennis match. Things like win-loss records wouldn't be as meaningful, all these little things that no one has mentioned. I sitll don't see how they can have a mixed ranking system where some tournaments are won one way and some won another way. It doesn't seem quite right, but whatever. nothing about this seems right :(

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:25 AM
These two will find appearance fees almost anywhere they want. So far they haven't played a lot of the same optional events. :shrug:Because last year Nadal played more events on clay during the winter.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:27 AM
The original article in the post that started this thread stated that both Federer and Nadal were in favor of RR events.

Read between the lines. What they are really saying is they support RR events for lower ranked players.

Fed hates the electronic line calling yet he challenges calls so I wouldn't be surprised that he speaks in favor of RR but won't play one.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:28 AM
RR distorts tennis as it increases the chances that the top-ranked players will prevail, since they may lose early and still win. As for your other points, it is not good enough to claim that spectators will show up, media cover the events, etc. That already happens in the current format. You need to argue that the RR format is better than the current format and that is simply not the case.

So you're clairvoyant? How can you say the RR is not better when you haven't even seen it work with a full tournament field of players? How about we see it action first?

And I'll say again, not every tournament is going to a RR format.

Deboogle!.
08-27-2006, 06:29 AM
Fed should be in favor of RR events, because he is often rusty in his first matches, this way he doesn't have to worry so much about winning but he can adjust to new conditions, whatever, and still win the tournament. He's a smart guy and knows damn well that tihs will make it even harder to beat him, of course he's all for it.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Read between the lines. What they are really saying is they support RR events for lower ranked players.

Fed hates the electronic line calling yet he challenges calls so I wouldn't be surprised that he speaks in favor of RR but won't play one.

Would you be willing to wager whether or not Roger enters a RR next year? I would.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:31 AM
I still haven't heard how a few Round Robin events will be the death knell of tennis. Will no one show up to watch? Will the news media not cover them? Will none of the pros enter? Will everyone who plays tennis suddenly quit? What?it will just begin to make a mockery of tournaments.... tennis events are all about K.O and as many have rightly said in this thread.... its all about the last guy standing at the end of the week, the player who hasnt lost a match - that week - deserves that title of champion.
how can he feel like a true champion of that tournament if say, he lost a round robin match 1-6 2-6 to 'xxxplayer' ranked fifty... its puts a black mark against his title and apart from anything else you'd have threads allover MTF the next week "WAS -XXXRANK50 PLAYER- THE REAL CHAMPION IN NEW HAVEN despite going out in rr stage!!!" kind of thing.

"WOULD BYE have won NEW HAVEN IF HE WAS IN THAT GROUP???"

"RAFA = BYE KILLA anonymous hosted by adee-gee"

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Why would any Top 50 player enter a RR event where they would have to play 6 matches in a week when they can play a normal event where they'd only have 5? :retard:

ExpectedWinner
08-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Because last year Nadal played more events on clay during the winter.

Listen, they play different warm up events on grass. They can do the same on other surfaces, if needed.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 06:32 AM
I hope Deb's right, but WTT has never had top players so I'm not sure it's analagous. But I hope you're right.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:34 AM
World Beater, I don't really think this is quite comparable to just making a playoff series best of 7. At least the way the games are won and lost and stuff are essentially the same. There are there things they could do to increase profits without messing with the way the game has been played like this, in a way that could vastly change the outcome and meaning of what it is to win a tennis match. Things like win-loss records wouldn't be as meaningful, all these little things that no one has mentioned. I sitll don't see how they can have a mixed ranking system where some tournaments are won one way and some won another way. It doesn't seem quite right, but whatever. nothing about this seems right :(

Well, i said they were similar not identical. Similar in the aspect that if the "better team" loses an extra game, it wont be catastrophic. If fed loses a match, he can still come back and win the tournie.

The nba has also meddled with the rules that now strongly favor offensive players to ensure high scoring games because defensive basketball was thought to be boring basketball.

i would assume that they will award pts based on wins just like in the TMC. Further, they would probably make all small events RR so that an RR event isn't competing with a regular one.

Merton
08-27-2006, 06:34 AM
So you're clairvoyant? How can you say the RR is not better when you haven't even seen it work with a full tournament field of players? How about we see it action first?

And I'll say again, not every tournament is going to a RR format.

There are cases where you don't need to see the result of an experiment to decide that it is a bad idea. Do you doubt that the RR format favours the top players more than the knock-out format? Why should they get an unfair advantage? Why is it relevant whether it is 1 event per year or 20 events per year if it is a bad format in principle?

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:36 AM
it will just begin to make a mockery of tournaments.... tennis events are all about K.O and as many have rightly said in this thread.... its all about the last guy standing at the end of the week, the player who hasnt lost a match - that week - deserves that title of champion.
how can he feel like a true champion of that tournament if say, he lost a round robin match 1-6 2-6 to 'xxxplayer' ranked fifty... its puts a black mark against his title and apart from anything else you'd have threads allover MTF the next week "WAS -XXXRANK50 PLAYER- THE REAL CHAMPION IN NEW HAVEN despite going out in rr stage!!!" kind of thing.

"WOULD BYE have won NEW HAVEN IF HE WAS IN THAT GROUP???"

"RAFA = BYE KILLA anonymous hosted by adee-gee"

Still no specific answer to my question. The winner of a RR event would still be the last guy standing. What no one seems to get is there is no way for someone to go without a loss and not win the event. The winner of the event will just be one who lost the least. There is no possible way for one player to lose more than another and still win. And it is still possible that a player can win a RR event without losing a match, so that point to me is moot.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 06:38 AM
There are cases where you don't need to see the result of an experiment to decide that it is a bad idea. Do you doubt that the RR format favours the top players more than the knock-out format? Why should they get an unfair advantage? Why is it relevant whether it is 1 event per year or 20 events per year if it is a bad format in principle?

I agree the higher ranked players lose less often than the lower ranked players. So they are favored in the knock-out format as well as the RR format.

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:39 AM
Listen, they play different warm up events on grass. They can do the same on other surfaces, if needed.Sure but that just throws this whole scheme out the window because the point is to ensure more Fed/Nadal finals since they've got this "rivalry" to push you know.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 06:40 AM
Go back to Disney De Villiers.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 06:40 AM
Merton, favoring Top Players is something they want to do - better tv ratings. That's why they ripped the heart out of Majors by over-seeding - to protect top players. Remember a few yrs. ago when they were these great 2 week festivals of tennis drama where top guys played all sorts of players you rarely got to see & they could lose any time? It was really exciting. Now top guys play other ranked so much lower the first week that it's tedious. The 2nd week is almost as dull 'cuz it's 80% predictable...But at least know nothings have heard the names of the players still standing at the end most of the time...

Merton
08-27-2006, 06:41 AM
I agree the higher ranked players lose less often than the lower ranked players. So they are favored in the knock-out format as well as the RR format.

Your first statement is a tautology, since higher ranked players must lose less often than lower ranked players. (Otherwise they would not be high ranked in the first place.) You don't answer the point that many people raised here though, that is that they are less likely to lose in a RR than in a KO format.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:42 AM
the introduction of round-robin in the early stages of some lower-level events.

Where did some translate into every small event? :confused:

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:43 AM
So you're clairvoyant? How can you say the RR is not better when you haven't even seen it work with a full tournament field of players? How about we see it action first?

And I'll say again, not every tournament is going to a RR format.getting away from this rr suiting the superstars like fed/rafa.
even if its in somewhere like Newport or St Poelten, with the top seed ranked no higher than 46... i still feel more often than not you might get an undeserving champion of the event.
i dont like the idea of that.

even the fans at the event might get confused by the new format.
they probably wouldnt know who is where in the group, played ? won? lost? out? in? dead rubber match?
you just take away what everyone knows and likes... its a winner goes on, loser is out.
that is championship tennis.

Merton
08-27-2006, 06:43 AM
Go back to Disney De Villiers.

The part where he sees tennis as entertainment business really says it all about the man.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:43 AM
Go back to Disney De Villiers.

:yeah: Does he even know anything about tennis? :help:

nobama
08-27-2006, 06:45 AM
Fed hates the electronic line calling yet he challenges calls so I wouldn't be surprised that he speaks in favor of RR but won't play one.Depends what tournaments have them. Yeah he spoke out against line calling but it's there and isn't going away so for him (or anyone else who doesn't like it, like Safin) not to use it when everyone else does is stupid. It's not like him taking this principled stand against line calling will make it go away since he's clearly in the minority with his view.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:45 AM
Fed should be in favor of RR events, because he is often rusty in his first matches, this way he doesn't have to worry so much about winning but he can adjust to new conditions, whatever, and still win the tournament. He's a smart guy and knows damn well that tihs will make it even harder to beat him, of course he's all for it.

not necc true. Part of the reason fed is way ahead of everyone is because of his consistency. Despite his feeling rusty, how many times has the rust translated into a loss or even a tough match?

Federer is better than everyone because he is able to reproduce his A game more frequently not necc because his A game is better than everyone else's A game.

Consider the case where fed goes unbeaten in group stage, and then he has to play nabs or nadal again, these guys would love another shot at fed if they lose during the group stage. It makes the more inconsistent players more consistent. Safin would become more dangerous, so would gonzalez.

of course long term, this would help roger because he wont be winning all the time, but by that time he probably wont care since his legacy will be defined by wining big events not these small RR events. Short term it clearly hurts.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Depends what tournaments have them. Yeah he spoke out against line calling but it's there and isn't going away so for him (or anyone else who doesn't like it, like Safin) not to use it when everyone else does is stupid. It's not like him taking this principled stand against line calling will make it go away since he's clearly in the minority with his view.

The point I was trying to make is not to literally believe every word that comes out of a player's mouth, i.e. words and actions often conflict.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Depends what tournaments have them. Yeah he spoke out against line calling but it's there and isn't going away so for him (or anyone else who doesn't like it, like Safin) not to use it when everyone else does is stupid. It's not like him taking this principled stand against line calling will make it go away since he's clearly in the minority with his view.

safin is fickle, he apparently praised the tech recently.

J. Corwin
08-27-2006, 06:52 AM
The ATP wants to kiss Roger and Rafael's ass so bad. Would they have done this if those two showed strong disapproval?

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 06:52 AM
There is no possible way for one player to lose more than another and still win. And it is still possible that a player can win a RR event without losing a match, so that point to me is moot.yeah well, taking the winners issue aside...
what about a group match between Marach and Gruel for example.....
they are 3rd and 4th in the group after 2 matches... and both already out, who the hell would watch or be interested in that match, pointless in every way.
complete winner takes nothing. (and dont say extra $20 in prize money and 5 entry list points lol)
at least under the normal way of things if that is a 1st rounder... there is something on the line, for every match.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 06:57 AM
Hope the players actually show some balls and do something about it, but in reality most wouldn't have the guts to do anything.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:08 AM
yeah well, taking the winners issue aside...
what about a group match between Marach and Gruel for example.....
they are 3rd and 4th in the group after 2 matches... and both already out, who the hell would watch or be interested in that match, pointless in every way.
complete winner takes nothing. (and dont say extra $20 in prize money and 5 entry list points lol)
at least under the normal way of things if that is a 1st rounder... there is something on the line, for every match.

So how many people would watch Marach and Gruel play in the first round of a regular event?

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 07:12 AM
The main changes needed have always been the schedule...
-no way should rome-hamburg be back to back and same with canada-cincinnati.
also maybe a week more between Roland garros and wimbledon.
-something should be done about 'tactical' injury time outs.
-players should not be warned for throwing or breaking a racquet (unless it endangers someone other than themself) as its good entertainment.
-and ridiculous fines for little things like missing an interview or pulling down your shorts after a long point.and more i remember:

-the blue tennis courts issue, its good they changed most to help see the ball, but there are still a events where i struggled to see the ball on tv... i cant remember where now, it might have been on clay.... so it might be my eyesight going.
-someone at ATPTennis.com sorts out the stat database and include the challenger matches back in the head to head stats, and better profile pics of the players.. preferably a shot of them in action (like the old players pics) and not them sitting there looking uncomfortable with that blue background.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 07:14 AM
and more i remember:

-the blue tennis courts issue, its good they changed most to help see the ball, but there are still a events where i struggled to see the ball on tv... i cant remember where now, it might have been on clay.... so it might be my eyesight going.
-someone at ATPTennis.com sorts out the stat database and include the challenger matches back in the head to head stats, and better profile pics of the players.. preferably a shot of them in action (like the old players pics) and not them sitting there looking uncomfortable with that blue background.

As I said previously Mr Disney is throwing up Band Aid and Mickey Mouse solutions to complex problems.

World Beater
08-27-2006, 07:14 AM
So how many people would watch Marach and Gruel play in the first round of a regular event?

how many people would watch two top players play a match without much at stake? it would be more of an exhibition match, and yes if thats your kind of entertainment, by all means. But most people want competition. Trick shots become boring after a while.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 07:17 AM
So how many people would watch Marach and Gruel play in the first round of a regular event?not many... but that wasnt my point, my point was at least if its a 1st rounder... there is something on the line, someone goes on into round2 and its not really a meaningless match to the tournament like a dead rubber would be in this RR idea.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:18 AM
how many people would watch two top players play a match without much at stake? it would be more of an exhibition match, and yes if thats your kind of entertainment, by all means. But most people want competition. Trick shots become boring after a while.

The place would sell out. I've been to some of the exhibition matches between Roddick/Agassi for example--packed houses everytime. People will always watch the marquee players play.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 07:20 AM
JW, when you are actually going to answer the questions posed at you by various other posters instead of preaching like the "Minister For Round Robin Domination"?

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:22 AM
I have answered every question. And what I'm saying is that I have an open mind on the issue, unlike most. An speaking of answering questions, I still have not read an answer to how a few RR's will ruin the game.

Merton
08-27-2006, 07:25 AM
Your first statement is a tautology, since higher ranked players must lose less often than lower ranked players. (Otherwise they would not be high ranked in the first place.) You don't answer the point that many people raised here though, that is that they are less likely to lose in a RR than in a KO format.

:scratch:

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 07:26 AM
I have answered every question. And what I'm saying is that I have an open mind on the issue, unlike most. An speaking of answering questions, I still have not read an answer to how a few RR's will ruin the game.

From what I have seen, you are simplifying the issue to suit your own particular viewpoint.

You do know how most of the players got to the top of the game, don't you? It wasn't by being soft and playing events in RR format and yes even Federer had to play Futures and Challengers once.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:31 AM
:scratch:

I didn't see that one. Again, is it less likely a higher ranked player will lose twice as opposed to a lower ranked player? Yes it is. Is it impossible? No. But I do not see this as favoring a higher ranked player. Sports are not played on paper, they are played on the court. As I said in another post, the winner of the event will still be the player who lost the least. Is it unfair that the higher ranked players lose less? I don't think so.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:34 AM
From what I have seen, you are simplifying the issue to suit your own particular viewpoint.

You do know how most of the players got to the top of the game, don't you? It wasn't by being soft and playing events in RR format and yes even Federer had to play Futures and Challengers once.

I don't have a viewpoint, I have an open mind. I do not see what all the panic is about. Because I do not choose to follow the herd should not be the issue.

Corey Feldman
08-27-2006, 07:37 AM
the sunday starts is another one that i dont like...
when i first heard about it i didnt like it but thought what the hell, then i seen on that sunday they played about 4 mens matches if i remember correctly.
unreal, seen it for what it was..... just a way for everyone to make more money out of an extra day.
money money money to Mr Disney and chums, to hell with the traditions of years gone by.
just wait for next year, they will have players wearing some sponsor on their white shirts at Wimbledon or something.

and great how they can put a week in between madrid and paris TMS and not canada-cincinnati, with rome-hamburg it is a bit easier to understand as there is monte carlo and a few great clay events to fit in to a short time before roland garros... altho not sure how much old Disney is to blame for this one, it has dragged on over the years.

Merton
08-27-2006, 07:37 AM
So why give extra advantages to higher ranked players? Especially since you don't generate any benefits relative to the current format.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:45 AM
So why give extra advantages to higher ranked players? Especially since you don't generate any benefits relative to the current format.

I don't see it as an advantage to higher ranked players any more than the regular format. The benifits as I see them are that more matches are played by all of the players. Another advantage I see is that in a RR format the players must play each other. In a regular tour event the seeds are separated from one another. Before they meet one of them may be upset and the other seed cruises along, or as the press say "the draw has opened up". In a RR event with a 32-48 draw those 2 seeded player must play each other, no matter what.

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 07:45 AM
I don't have a viewpoint, I have an open mind. I do not see what all the panic is about. Because I do not choose to follow the herd should not be the issue.

Your "open-mindedness" and individuality should be applauded but the world is no Utopia. You need to look at the bigger picture and the more important issues like how fair this proposal will be to the lower-ranked players instead of simplifying matters. :shrug:

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 07:47 AM
I don't have a viewpoint, I have an open mind. I do not see what all the panic is about. Because I do not choose to follow the herd should not be the issue.

It's not a question of following the herd at all. In other words you are playing devils advocate for the sake of it. You have an open mind, yet you use naive arguments.

You do know the tennis structure works right? If so, then how does RR benefit the overall "group" and no this does not mean Federer and Nadal?

Look at my comment about the Futures and the Challengers, there is a reason they exist and they are an important part of the tennis chain and a tough breeding ground, which players want to get out of into the big league. How do they do that? It isn't winning RR events.

A player should not be rewarded by losing a match in the main draw, the TMC and Düsseldorf it works in these cases, and for Düsseldorf, there are no ATP points. In a RR there is the strategic advantage to tank matches if it means playing an easier opponent in the knockout, something that doesn't happen in normal events and shouldn't.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:48 AM
Your "open-mindedness" and individuality should be applauded but the world is no Utopia. You need to look at the bigger picture and the more important issues like how fair this proposal will be to the lower-ranked players instead of simplifying matters. :shrug:

What about seeing how the format works first? I'm amazed that so many here can only see black or white--even before the first RR event has taken place.

Merton
08-27-2006, 07:50 AM
I don't see it as an advantage to higher ranked players any more than the regular format.

They get the time to warm up in the event and they are not penalized if they lose early. Just as an example, what do you think is more likely, Nadal failing to win a clay tournament on an RR format or a KO format?

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 07:50 AM
What about seeing how the format works first? I'm amazed that so many here can only see black or white--even before the first RR event has taken place.

You've yet to provide a plausible scenario of how it could work and how other players besides those on top wouldn't be marginalised. :shrug:

njorker
08-27-2006, 07:51 AM
They want to address the health concerns of players, yet they're mandating round-robin formatting for some tourneys? What a laugh.

Exactly.


I don't mind the occassional round robin event. I've seen it used in the Champions Tour and it works there. Not every event will be a RR. For the sport to grow sometimes you need to think outside the box. Variety and change are not always so bad. I say give it a shot, if it doesn't work then nix it. But don't condem it just because it's something new. It seems that tennis is in a bit of a panic mode. Gimmicks like Hawkeye, on-court coaching, and you could say RR's are a gimmick too, are being brought out almost monthy. The Sunday starts are a good idea, and getting rid of 3 of 5 set finals is also a good move.

JW10S has a good point as well. Accepting change is a part of life.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:54 AM
It's not a question of following the herd at all. In other words you are playing devils advocate for the sake of it. You have an open mind, yet you use naive arguments.

You do know the tennis structure works right? If so, then how does RR benefit the overall "group" and no this does not mean Federer and Nadal?

Look at my comment about the Futures and the Challengers, there is a reason they exist and they are an important part of the tennis chain and a tough breeding ground, which players want to get out of into the big league. How do they do that? It isn't winning RR events.

A player should not be rewarded by losing a match in the main draw, the TMC and Düsseldorf it works in these cases, and for Düsseldorf, there are no ATP points. In a RR there is the strategic advantage to tank matches if it means playing an easier opponent in the knockout, something that doesn't happen in normal events and shouldn't.

I've played professional tennis so yes I know how the structure works. I think it is naive to blanketly state the system will not work before it has happened. The RR system does not reward a player for losing. That is being naive. Can you name an instance in the last 10 years where a player tanked a match in the Masters? Come on, you're really scrapping the barrel now.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 07:57 AM
As for accepting change, fix the issues that really count and not shitty gimmicks. Change should only be for the better

The length of season, adjusting the calendar so back to back TMS events don't happen. Negoitate TV rights as an organsiation and not the individual tournaments, so it can be easier to package these to a global audience. Of course they have to make money as well and this has to be factored in, but tennis isn't going bankrupt at anytime soon and it is a niche market.

Lee
08-27-2006, 07:57 AM
As GWH pointed out, the only 2 RR events played by ATP players are TMC and Düsseldorf.

Düsseldorf is a team event and has no ranking point.

TMC, imho, is more an 'all-star' game. Moreover, with the deep pocket and limited number of players, the event can afford to pay 2 extra players 'incentive' money, hotel and plane tickets to come to an event that they don't have to lift a racket unless another player(s) withdraw during the RR rounds. And because this is an elite event, these extra players are still in top 20 in ranking.

For 'a few' low-level ATP tournaments with 32 or 48 players with RR rounds, how many 'reserved' players they need? Yes, they can be LL from quali but now the tournament needs to keep certain amount players longer. How much money will a low-level tournament dish out to a nobody player to hang around a few more days who may need even need to raise his racket?

JW10S
08-27-2006, 07:57 AM
You've yet to provide a plausible scenario of how it could work and how other players besides those on top wouldn't be marginalised. :shrug:

Yes I have, you must not have read all my posts.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 07:57 AM
What about seeing how the format works first? I'm amazed that so many here can only see black or white--even before the first RR event has taken place.

We have seen RR events - Masters Cup and Dusseldorf - therefore we have a basis to conclude how it would turn out in other events.

Like GWH said, Futures and Challengers are not played RR, why would someone work their way through those to end up in a RR on the main tour where even if they score a huge upset may not even end up advancing at all?

silverwhite
08-27-2006, 07:58 AM
Yes I have, you must not have read all my posts.

I was referring to plausible scenarios, not simplistic explanations.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:01 AM
They get the time to warm up in the event and they are not penalized if they lose early. Just as an example, what do you think is more likely, Nadal failing to win a clay tournament on an RR format or a KO format?

If he can lose once, he can lose twice. If a player has a bad day one day it is not always a given that he can turn it all around the next. It is possible to have a bad patch of matches. The rankings and the stats would not have suggested Nadal would have the results he had in the back to back tourneys in Canada and Cincy. Again, tennis matches are not played on paper.

Lee
08-27-2006, 08:01 AM
What about seeing how the format works first? I'm amazed that so many here can only see black or white--even before the first RR event has taken place.

I followed TMC and I saw players tanked matches to conserve energy or avoid meeting certain player in other group in SF. I much prefer strategy on a tennis court than outside a tennis court.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:03 AM
I've played professional tennis so yes I know how the structure works. I think it is naive to blanketly state the system will not work before it has happened. The RR system does not reward a player for losing. That is being naive. Can you name an instance in the last 10 years where a player tanked a match in the Masters? Come on, you're really scrapping the barrel now.

Lendl did it and admitted to doing so. If you have played pro tennis and know how the structure works, then what about those other 2 circuits? Yes they are minor in comparison, but still play an active role in helping players prepare for the main tour and the best ones didn't get there through RR or do you want to disagree with that??

It's the Champions Tour, it's not the same thing and it works for that environment. How serious is the Champions Tour.

Ok, as for people whining about coaching. On court coaches are a gimmick and if they are worried about coaching from the stands. They could easily get 2 ATP or ITF officials to sit next to the coaching box and therefore police that.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:03 AM
I was referring to plausible scenarios, not simplistic explanations.

Look up.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:05 AM
If he can lose once, he can lose twice. If a player has a bad day one day it is not always a given that he can turn it all around the next. It is possible to have a bad patch of matches. The rankings and the stats would not have suggested Nadal would have the results he had in the back to back tourneys in Canada and Cincy. Again, tennis matches are not played on paper.

If a player has a bad day and loses then they should be out of the tournament. It's like an athletics meet, there might be a big star and they are the best in that field, but if they don't perform on the day and get the job done then they have the L next to their name and deservedly so.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:10 AM
Lendl did it and admitted to doing so. If you have played pro tennis and know how the structure works, then what about those other 2 circuits? Yes they are minor in comparison, but still play an active role in helping players prepare for the main tour and the best ones didn't get there through RF or do you want to disagree with that??

It's the Champions Tour, it's not the same thing and it works for that environment. How serious is the Champions Tour.

Ok, as for people whining about coaching. On court coaches are a gimmick and if they are worried about coaching from the stands. They could easily get 2 ATP or ITF officials to sit next to the coaching box and therefore police that.

I don't remember if Lendl played the Masters 10 years ago but the tiebreak system in the Masters was changed to deal with the tanking issue as it has with the Champions tour (funny how you think it works there).

RR tournaments can help lower ranked players as they will get the opportunity to play more matches. Often a up-and-coming pro must endure months or years of first and second round loses. His advancement might be aided by the chance to play Federer or Nadal after having lost his first RR match. Instead of going back to the practice court he is playing matches. I think that is a plus.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:14 AM
I followed TMC and I saw players tanked matches to conserve energy or avoid meeting certain player in other group in SF. I much prefer strategy on a tennis court than outside a tennis court.

Please site specific examples.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 08:15 AM
Players play practice matches with each other all the time. And some of them take those just as seriously as real matches. ;)

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:20 AM
Players play practice matches with each other all the time. And some of them take those just as seriously as real matches. ;)

Oh please. You have obviously never competed seriously. No practice match is like the real thing.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:21 AM
I don't remember if Lendl played the Masters 10 years ago but the tiebreak system in the Masters was changed to deal with the tanking issue as it has with the Champions tour (funny how you think it works there).

RR tournaments can help lower ranked players as they will get the opportunity to play more matches. Often a up-and-coming pro must endure months or years of first and second round loses. Hie advancement might be aided by the chance to play Federer or Nadal after having lost his first RR match. Instead of going back to the practice court he is playing matches. I think that is a plus.

As for why it works there? Well it's the final event of the year and if they were to have it as a knockout format, then 16 players would be required. As I don't think the top 16 is too generous for an end of season championships, then it has to be 8. If done in a knockout format, it would only go for 3 days.

See you used 10 years ago to cover your back. However it has happened at a TMC event and of course if a player has nothing to play cause they are either eliminated or already through then it's far from surprising that they want to conserve energy, therefore they are not at their optimum level mentally cause of the circumstances mentioned.

Actually that is good for youngsters to have those losses, it's called the learning curve and realising everything isn't going to be as easy as it was in juniors. Then there are players who have done well in Challengers recently like Pashanski, Berlocq and now Hajek and they now have to fight to improve at ATP level and play against people better than them at a different level and learn what it takes to do well in knockout tournaments.

If they lose, then they go to the next one and many players are at that fine line between playing qualifiers or a Challenger. So RR should be implemented in Challengers and Futures events as well?

Is that you Brad Gilbert? If so you are doing a good job with Murray.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 08:25 AM
Oh please. You have obviously never competed seriously. No practice match is like the real thing.

I have never played in a tournament but what does that have to do with anything?

I watched one a few Saturdays ago between Ferrer and Robredo. Trust me it was exactly how they act during real matches, changovers and everything. Ferrer was throwing a tantrum per usual.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:27 AM
As for why it works there? Well it's the final event of the year and if they were to have it as a knockout format, then 16 players would be required. As I don't think the top 16 is too generous for an end of season championships, then it has to be 8. If done in a knockout format, it would only go for 3 days.

See you used 10 years ago to cover your back. However it has happened at a TMC event and of course if a player has nothing to play cause they are either eliminated or already through then it's far from surprising that they want to conserve energy, therefore they are not at their optimum level mentally cause of the circumstances mentioned.

Actually that is good for youngsters to have those losses, it's called the learning curve and realising everything isn't going to be as easy as it was in juniors. Then there are players who have done well in Challengers recently like Pashanski, Berlocq and now Hajek and they now have to fight to improve at ATP level and play against people better than them at a different level and learn what it takes to do well in knockout tournaments.

If they lose, then they go to the next one and many players are at that fine line between playing qualifiers or a Challenger. So RR should be implemented in Challengers and Futures events as well?

Is that you Brad Gilbert? If so you are doing a good job with Murray.

I think if the RR's work on the main tour they will be implemented on the Challenger, Futures and Satellite circuits.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:29 AM
I have never played in a tournament but what does that have to do with anything?

I watched one a few Saturdays ago between Ferrer and Robredo. Trust me it was exactly how they act during real matches, changovers and everything. Ferrer was throwing a tantrum per usual.

So how much money was the winner of that practice match going to get? How would the loss effect the losers ranking? Trust me, it's nowhere near the same.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:32 AM
Not to bring the WTA into this, but anyone who saw Sharapova playing against Petrova in the round-robins at their year-end championships could quite clearly tell she was fairly happy to lose, not playing with her usual intensity and decibel level, and openly smiling/smirking during changeovers. Why would she play with the same intensity when she had a shoulder to worry about, was already into the next round, and Petrova was going home after the match anyway?

Not that Petrova didn't deserve to win - she surely did for taking the match seriously against an opponent who didn't seem to care. But I was disgusted to watch Pova that night, and I was glad she lost in the next stage - where her intensity level was back up again, surprise surprise! - because she hadn't earned it in my opinion.

If that's the type of match the ATP wants to show more of in order to promote the lower ranked players, good luck to them.

According to Mary Carillo Federer tanked his match in Cincy. It's too easy to say someone tanked a match.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 08:33 AM
So how much money was the winner of that practice match going to get? How would the loss effect the losers ranking? Trust me, it's nowhere near the same.

That is not what they are about and if you were a pro you would know that. Obviously they work as the players have been playing them for years. Even Fed. :p

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:36 AM
I think if the RR's work on the main tour they will be implemented on the Challenger, Futures and Satellite circuits.

Ok, next point. If you think this is the case. Then why wouldn't they test it at that level first?

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:37 AM
According to Mary Carillo Federer tanked his match in Cincy. It's too easy to say someone tanked a match.

Federer didnt tank that match at all. I have seen some very good tank jobs and that isn't one of them from Fed, especially after what happened in Dubai.

TenHound
08-27-2006, 08:39 AM
So, the ATP sent over some hack to try & shove it down people's throats. Ignore the jerk.

JW10S
08-27-2006, 08:40 AM
That is not what they are about and if you were a pro you would know that. Obviously they work as the players have been playing them for years. Even Fed. :p

*sigh* Yes of course pros play practice matches. My point was, since you obviously didn't get it, is that a player will benefit far more from playing tournament matches with money and ranking points on the line than losing first round. Do me a favor. Play practice matches everyday for a month then go enter your first tournament then tell me there's no difference.

I'm done with this. I've made my point. I'll leave you all to your doom-and-gloom.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:43 AM
No doom and gloom here, just realistic concerns that cosmetic changes are done under the guise of reform, but not addressing the important issues.

yanchr
08-27-2006, 08:50 AM
I don't quite like the idea of eliminating best of 5 finals in TMS. A best of 3 final is a bit anti-climax especially if we are having two players on the very close top. And TMS event is too big to deserve an anti-climax ending. This year's Rome final directly came to mind. The only problem is the back-to-back TMS within two weeks.

For the RR thing, it simply shows why they are only business people. They don't care about the majority of the players who are just earning a life out of playing tennis. They only care about those celebrities. All the sense made here shows why we are just fans, will probably never have a say in the business world.

LaTenista
08-27-2006, 08:51 AM
I know what you mean, no one here can seem to explain to me why playing 6 matches in a week to win a RR tournament is better for players than playing 5 for a title currently. Especially when players are already complaining that the season is too long and so likely they would be playing more matches instead of less. :cuckoo:

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 08:55 AM
It's funny how according to some people, that kind of thinking makes a person "close-minded." :shrug:

Well this could be the case, but I have had my points and have tried to offer some solutions. As for close minded well that depends on your viewpoint.

As I said earlier it would be interesting to see if these players actually had some spine and stood up for themselves, then the proper concerns could be addressed.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 09:18 AM
It really would be interesting to see what would happen if the Top 20 (or 50?) all boycotted simultaneously - not just to see how much power they'd be able to wield, but also to what end(s) they'd use it.

(And for sure there can tend to be a knee-jerk resistance to any major/minor change among many fans, especially hardcore ones, though I think most of the people opposed to this particular idea have had very legitimate concerns.)

I actually said this elsewhere. There was a time when the rumours about a breakaway group forming and a rebel thing might be needed, if this RR shit is implemented. Sure it would be painful, then they would realise what is going on and then settle it for the overall benefit of the game and not just Fed and Nadal, then it would improve from there and have seen this happen twice in other sports, that the game benefitted overall.

It's like this when it comes to change. Football the most popular game in the world has limited rule changes since its inception. Two examples of good rule changes.

a) When they banned the backpass to the keeper, where he couldn't pick it up with his hands. They had to put a stop to it and it worked.

b) Holding up the time added on after a half, so the crowd and players can see how much extra time is played.

Then on the other hand, there are gimmicks and I see your point about knee-jerk reactions, but I know my position on this particular topic.

Gulliver
08-27-2006, 11:22 AM
Taking a player like Vanek (ranked 100) who's already played 24 tournaments, admittedly mostly Challengers, and acquired $184,000 this year, would he be better off taking part in the odd ATP RR tournament? After all, this type of player is trying to make a living doing something which we assume he loves, but one has to eat! Would it, in fact, mean that he still makes the same amount of money if he lost all his matches and only got paid for 1 match as usual? Now if he won one, would that be worth more?

I just find it easier to try and work out if there are benefits to a lower ranked player.

Jim Courier
08-27-2006, 01:48 PM
Coming next: the end of second serves and ad-scoring, and super tie-breaks.

Havok
08-27-2006, 01:59 PM
Round Robin is RETARDED. It only makes sense and works perfectly for the TCM, that is all. Also starting tournaments on Sunday blows chunks as well! Who the hell does that favor anyways? Sure it gives players one extra day or and extra day to play around with so that they won't have to play 5/7 days if they win the title, rather 5/8 days. Though let's be honest, do shit lower ranked players win these titles most of the time? Hardly.

It's the top players and the decently ranked players winning these titles, so starting an event one day earlier is really worthless since they'll probably be winning a fucking title on Sunday while their next event has started already :retard:.. I'm shocked Nadal and Federer support this fucked up change, both are retarded.

Action Jackson
08-27-2006, 02:05 PM
Sunday starts are just another marketing gimmick and Naldo pretty much explained everything on that subject.

NicoFan
08-27-2006, 02:09 PM
I think the RR idea is shit - and Sunday starts are shit too.

Everything has already been said. The ATP (and the players who agree with these changes) are completely out of touch with what the sport needs and what the fans want.

savesthedizzle
08-27-2006, 02:36 PM
I didn't see that one. Again, is it less likely a higher ranked player will lose twice as opposed to a lower ranked player? Yes it is. Is it impossible? No. But I do not see this as favoring a higher ranked player. Sports are not played on paper, they are played on the court. As I said in another post, the winner of the event will still be the player who lost the least. Is it unfair that the higher ranked players lose less? I don't think so.


I think what you still don't comprehend is that the majority of tennis fans (at least in this thread) don't believe in the second chance. We don't want a champion who lost "the least" we want one who didn't lose AT ALL. We think it is unfair that a top player will lose and still be involved in the tournament. We think it is unfair that a lower ranked player will lose and still be involved in the tournament.

It is pointless to continue debating with you. Tell me, how much is the ATP paying you to take this crazy position.

nobama
08-27-2006, 02:37 PM
I believe the article said that Federer and Nadal were on board with these changes. I don't understand why. It's not like these guys need help winning tournaments. They're winning most of them the way it is now. And under the RR format they'd be playing more matches not less. Because I can't see them introducing the RR format and then only applying it to smaller tournaments with not many/if any top players in the field. Seems to me the point of this stupid idea is to please the TV networks so that when they cover an event from the QF/SF on all they have are marquee names left.