Some players reactions about the RR format [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Some players reactions about the RR format

Pages : [1] 2 3

*julie*
09-27-2006, 04:28 PM
From the french tennis magazine:
(I don't have time to type the whole article but here are some extracts)

Sébastien Grosjean admits he hasn't "weighted up the pros and the cons, yet" but his first reaction was "it seems to be a good idea for the tournaments' directors, the tv and the fans. Sébastien also thinks "it's a good thing for all the players because it gives them a second chance'.

Rafael Nadal is delighted by these changes: "We are sure to play 2 or 3 matches. It's good for the sponsors and tvs. When the best players loose in a first round, it's a very bad news for the tournament".

Fabrice Santoro denounces the fact that "only economic arguments are behind all this. Loosing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept."

No hypocrisy from Marat Safin: "It's good for the top players. If a tournament director pay to get good players, he wants to keep them until the end".

Nothing surprising, then that lower players have different point of views. Nicolas Mahut is disillusioned: "We didn't have a say in all this. They only consulted the Nadals and Federers, who found it a good thing..."

Florent Serra confirms: "The best players will be protected. They will have the opportunity to remake themselves".

And Richard Gasquet, without really being against this change, regrets that " the defeat will be less penalized than today". He also adds "Federer can loose once but not twice".

Cautiously, the world number 1 Roger Federer says "It's an idea which makes sense. We have to try it to see..."

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 04:32 PM
Thanks and I will find some other reactions if possible.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 04:34 PM
Tursunov is cautiously sceptical:

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

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: Yes.

Q. What are your views on that?

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: It never hurts to try it. We can try it. First of all, I think the main issue is how the fans respond to it. If it increases the interest in tennis, then I think we should go along with that.

At the end of the day, fans are the ones paying our bills. If they're enjoying the format, the players will adapt eventually. The players that are having problems with challenge reviews, with tiebreaks in the fifth set, a lot of things.

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

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

DIMITRY TURSUNOV: I think that's probably going to be that change is going to be probably much harder to slide by the singles players than the round robin. I think these are all just ideas. They're not really I don't think they're going to start playing a super set tiebreak all of a sudden.

I think if they change to round robin it is going to be good enough and it's going to be a positive review, then they might not even go along with that super tiebreak. I don't know. I mean, I think we have to take it one step at a time. If we start doing a bunch of changes right away, we're not really sure what has been having positive feedback and negative feedback. Super set tiebreak, I haven't really heard too much about it. I know round robin has been talked about a lot.

Horatio Caine
09-27-2006, 04:35 PM
Thanks for that.

From a fan's perspective, it is good.

But I don't like the idea...More than anything, I think match fixing could become a problem.

Horatio Caine
09-27-2006, 04:36 PM
Man I hope they don't get a super tiebreak in :eek: :fiery:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 04:37 PM
Moya:

Moya advocated the league format, which will be introduced in some ATP tournaments next year, saying it is good for the players, organisers as well as the fans.

"It helps you to relax a little. I have played in the Masters, which is the only tournament right now using the league format, and it's good for the players. Even you have an off-day you have the chance to make it to the quarter-final. If someone like [Rafael] Nadal or [Roger] Federer lose in the early-rounds, the fans still have more chances to watch the top players."

ExpectedWinner
09-27-2006, 04:38 PM
Fabrice Santoro denounces the fact that "only economic arguments are behind all this. Loosing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept."



:yeah:

s.m.
09-27-2006, 04:48 PM
interesting and nothing suprising
this is protection of the bigs, and only bigs ( + history players like moya ) like it
a circus

CooCooCachoo
09-27-2006, 04:49 PM
I completely agree with Fabrice.

s.m.
09-27-2006, 04:55 PM
I completely agree with Fabrice.

fabrice the philosopher :worship:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 04:57 PM
Most sensible people would agree with Santoro, it's a MM concept.

Mr Disney come on man make some more chances, lets have Fed vs Nadal best of 5 matches to decide the final. It will make more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 04:57 PM
I'm gonna emulate my dear Ginger friend from Zimbabwe:
All players supporting RR should be STONED!

alfonsojose
09-27-2006, 05:02 PM
Tennis is becoming a circus :sad:

star
09-27-2006, 05:09 PM
I hate this more than any other idea proposed. I'd rather have on the court coaching. Anything but round robin. I don't like it at the year end tournament either although I grudgingly agree it makes sense there. Tennis isn't just about the top players. They already have enough natural advantage. Why give them more.

It just makes is so much harder on those outside the top ten.

tangerine_dream
09-27-2006, 05:11 PM
LOL. Roger the dominant No. 1 for three years thinks the RR format "makes sense", but the Hawkeye system doesn't.

Tee hee! He silly. :)

NyGeL
09-27-2006, 05:12 PM
I agree with Santoro.

With this new format, players like Gaudio or Robredo will be bageled more and more becouse they will have a 2nd chance :p

I think that current system is the best one, you know that if you lose, you are out, and that makes the tournaments more interesting.

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 05:13 PM
Thank you so much for the opinions :yeah: As I asked the same question Nicolas Lapentti (thanks for hint, GWH!) he said more or less the same - it's good for tournament's directors and if it attracts more fans to tennis - it's also good for the discipline. But he said there was no guarantee of that and he's rather sceptical.

If I can add something from myself, he looked v-e-r-y sceptical when heard that question.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:13 PM
No tangernius, he isn't silly. He is just seeking something which would give him the greater advantage than he already has.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:14 PM
Thank you so much for the opinions :yeah: As I asked the same question Nicolas Lapentti (thanks for hint, GWH!) he said more or less the same - it's good for tournament's directors and if it attracts more fans to tennis - it's also good for the discipline. But he said there was no guarantee of that and he's rather sceptical.

If I can add something from myself, he looked v-e-r-y sceptical when heard that question.

Not a problem Nathii, I figured you were interviewing him and it's a relevant tennis question, well as much as how hot does he find the Polish women.

In other words, he said the nice things outwardly, but was sceptical.

tangerine_dream
09-27-2006, 05:15 PM
No tangernius, he isn't silly. He is just seeking something which would give him the greater advantage than he already has.
Yes, of course Rafa and Roger think it's a fabulous idea. But even Marat is more consistent with his "this is all bullshit" comments.

star
09-27-2006, 05:18 PM
Another practical thing: What about the rankings? How will they dole out points for this? It doesn't seem fair that the players at the top would be able to double up on ranking points.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:19 PM
Yes, of course Rafa and Roger think it's a fabulous idea. But even Marat is more consistent with his "this is all bullshit" comments.

He loves Hawkeye too and I think since Mr Disney is making a joke of tennis and there are enough clowns on this site. There has to be some potential here for some MM solutions that Disney could use :)

Might as well have a league system with division of 16 players in each. Let them play each other in that league and then have a best of 5, then get promoted to the next level and others get relegated.

Hardcourt league
Claycourt league
Grasscourt league
Indoor league

Neverstopfightin
09-27-2006, 05:25 PM
Fabrice Santoro " Loosing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept."


I guess that if Fabrice had had the chance of playing a masters cup then he would have renounced to play it for a matter of principles :rolleyes: , since of course it would have been very difficult for him to accept to play in a competition where you can even win it losing a match .


Now not referring to Santoro's comment :

RR format will have defects and faults but also has his good things . In my opinion there is a lot of hypocrisy and demagogy by persons who are against the new format because it seems they are talking about it the same way than the arrival of Antichrist .

If we had been born and grown up with the round robin format being in force and ATP tried to change it for the current system then I'm sure people would attack ATP saying something similar to " you lost your mind , a system where if you lose the first match you are out of the tournament is a roulette , it's very unfair to be out just because you had a bad day , now weak players will have more chances to pass rounds and win tournaments and that's not good for the quality of final round matches , now clown players with a lucky week will play finals and blah blah blah ".

When you have been educated a lot of years under some rules it's usually tough to accept some drastic changes , but after some years everybody accept it and it isn't the end of the world :shrug:

I don't know if RR format will be succesful or ATP will end the experiment at the end of next season for being a failure , but at least in my opinion a priori I see also positive things in the new format and I want to wait until the new system is experimented before drawing drastic conclusions about if these changes will kill tennis .

Lee
09-27-2006, 05:26 PM
Another practical thing: What about the rankings? How will they dole out points for this? It doesn't seem fair that the players at the top would be able to double up on ranking points.

The top 8 players already have extra ranking points because of TMC. :shrug:

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 05:29 PM
Not a problem Nathii, I figured you were interviewing him and it's a relevant tennis question, well as much as how hot does he find the Polish women.

In other words, he said the nice things outwardly, but was sceptical.
I haven't asked him questions about the Polish women!!! Afterwards I asked him about his brother's injury and the general situation in Ecuadorian tennis!!! And I asked one more question at the conference but don't remember which one... but tennis-related :o

But other journalists did ask him about Polish women, does he go out for a drink, Anna Kournikova and was his mother Miss Ecuador for real :rolleyes: I swear it wasn't me!

Yeah I think all players like around 70-100 place who find successful breaking into ATP quaters by being lucky with defeating a seeded one, are sceptical. But there aren't many who'd say: "It's a f****g cheating on us". :shrug:

Lee
09-27-2006, 05:29 PM
I guess that if Fabrice had had the chance of playing a masters cup then he would have renounced to play it for a matter of principles :rolleyes: , since of course it would have been very difficult for him to accept to play in a competition where you can even win it losing a match .


He had played in master cup. He and Llorda are the defending doubles champion. ;)

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:31 PM
When you have been educated a lot of years under some rules it's usually tough to accept some drastic changes , but after some years everybody accept it and it isn't the end of the world :shrug:

I don't know if RR format will be succesful or ATP will end the experiment at the end of next season for being a failure , but at least in my opinion a priori I see also positive things in the new format and I want to wait until the new system is experimented before draw drastic conclusions about if this changes will kill tennis .

As for Santoro are you kidding. He has played in a RR format and has played at the TMC events before. With an 8 man field at TMC it works, but for regular tournaments it's a joke.

Far from it. I have watched football since I was 2 and when they made rule changes for the better. Believe it or not goalkeepers could pick up the ball from back passes with their hands, now they can't. That is an example of a rule change that has worked, but the essence of the game is still the same.

Considering that this rule is only there to protect tournament directors and top players, is that good for the whole of the sport?

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:33 PM
Yeah I think all players like around 70-100 place who find successful breaking into ATP quaters by being lucky with defeating a seeded one, are sceptical. But there aren't many who'd say: "It's a f****g cheating on us". :shrug:

I mean it would need someone like Gasquet or someone of note to speak out or someone could call their bluff and form their own tour.

Let them have the top 10 or 16 travelling circus.

Neverstopfightin
09-27-2006, 05:36 PM
He had played in master cup. He and Llorda are the defending doubles champion. ;)

I remembered he hadn't played a singles masters cup but I forgot the doubles side . Now watching the stats I see he won it losing his first match , so I guess that when he won the final he felt strange , felt rubbish . ;) :rolleyes:

s.m.
09-27-2006, 05:37 PM
I guess that if Fabrice had had the chance of playing a masters cup then he would have renounced to play it for a matter of principles :rolleyes: , since of course it would have been very difficult for him to accept to play in a competition where you can even win it losing a match .


you are comparing one tournament, masters tournament, 8 best players where the basically play all against each other, to see who is the best of the best at the end of the season, with the full season of that format
i see that challenge for 2007. arseclown championship has already began

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 05:39 PM
I mean it would need someone like Gasquet or someone of note to speak out or someone could call their bluff and form their own tour.

Let them have the top 10 or 16 travelling circus.
Doesn't it remind you a bit the situation in football when the richest clubs told UEFA they were separating and making the league for the richest? With the club I hate the most = Real Madrid, also Man Utd, Barcelona, Ajax Amsterdam, Bayern Munchen etc.

With the :worship: quote from god Franz Beckenbauer he's pissed that his lovely Bayern had to travel to backwarded countries like Poland :lol:

Opinions from players like Gasquet, Nieminen, Chucho would be appreciated but the one with power don't care much... Maybe Ginepri, Fish and guys like them should speak up and be upset.

vincayou
09-27-2006, 05:42 PM
I'm not against change per se. Tennis needs to be promoted. Round robin, like in any sport, is the way to protect the best player/team.

I'm not sure to like it. I don't like the masters, I don't think it will work. It kills the adrenaline of seeing your favourite being eliminated. And tennis is a sport where surprises are not that frequent, there is no hold up in tennis like it can happen in soccer. Only injuries can prevent the best player on the day to win.

All in all, I don't think it's a good idea. If you want to see the best players, go to a master serie, the quality is there from day one. Or limit the master serie event to 32 players if you think that the quality is not concentrated enough.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:42 PM
Doesn't it remind you a bit the situation in football when the richest clubs told UEFA they were separating and making the league for the richest? With the club I hate the most = Real Madrid, also Man Utd, Barcelona, Ajax Amsterdam, Bayern Munchen etc.

With the :worship: quote from god Franz Beckenbauer he's pissed that his lovely Bayern had to travel to backwarded countries like Poland :lol:

Opinions from players like Gasquet, Nieminen, Chucho would be appreciated but the one with power don't care much... Maybe Ginepri, Fish and guys like them should speak up and be upset.

I totally remember the creation of the Champs League, basically as I said then all these big clubs thought they were it, but UEFA caved in and this is what we got. They should have said OK, get lost and form your own league.

The ones with power are in bed with de Villiers, of course they forgot how they got there initially by winning Futures and Challengers etc.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 05:44 PM
Simple.

Players like Federer, Nadal, Roddick make money for tennis and increase its popularity.
Players like Ljboho, Mirnyi, Santaro are unkwown and make close to no money for the sport.
Seeing two clowns play each other in the finals in not good for the popularity of the sport.
Tennis popularity is more important than some 50th ranked fool crying.

My logic is the light for MTF. Follow it.

vincayou
09-27-2006, 05:44 PM
I totally remember the creation of the Champs League, basically as I said then all these big clubs thought they were it, but UEFA caved in and this is what we got. They should have said OK, get lost and form your own league.

The ones with power are in bed with de Villiers, of course they forgot how they got there initially by winning Futures and Challengers etc.

All in all, champions league only become interesting when it comes back in cup format (from the 1/8).

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 05:46 PM
All in all, champions league only become interesting when it comes back in cup format (from the 1/8).

Yes, there are only so many meaningless games to put up with, which is most of them.

The match fixing will be even more rife than it is now.

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 05:48 PM
All in all, champions league only become interesting when it comes back in cup format (from the 1/8).
:worship:

And the clubs after second stage RR falling into UEFA Cup wasn't world's most fortunate idea, or was it? :rolleyes:

Haide Steaua Bucharest :angel:

shotgun
09-27-2006, 05:49 PM
Simple.

Players like Federer, Nadal, Roddick make money for tennis and increase its popularity.
Players like Ljboho, Mirnyi, Santaro are unkwown and make close to no money for the sport.
Seeing two clowns play each other in the finals in not good for the popularity of the sport.
Tennis popularity is more important than some 50th ranked fool crying.

My logic is the light for MTF. Follow it.

You're only considering a certain part of the fanbase, that only follows tennis because of the no. 1 and no. 2 in the world.

There is another part of the fanbase who is actually seeking for excitement and appreciates the sport enough to be aware that there are other good players on the tour not named Federer or Nadal.

Neverstopfightin
09-27-2006, 05:56 PM
As for Santoro are you kidding. He has played in a RR format and has played at the TMC events before. With an 8 man field at TMC it works, but for regular tournaments it's a joke.

I don't see no joke in making groups of 3 players as ATP seems to want to experiment next year . I'm against group of 4 players though , since there would be a lot of dead matches .

Santoro was only an example of the hypocrisy in this subject .

Far from it. I have watched football since I was 2 and when they made rule changes for the better. Believe it or not goalkeepers could pick up the ball from back passes with their hands, now they can't. That is an example of a rule change that has worked, but the essence of the game is still the same..

When that soccer rule was changed the goalkeepers weren't the happiest persons on Earth . Usually the rules changes aren't welcome for everybody.

Considering that this rule is only there to protect tournament directors and top players, is that good for the whole of the sport?

That rule is also good for the lot of fans who are saving money a whole year to go to another city or country to see their idols . That just's one example of the positive things of this new format .

Personally I prefer to see another player than C.Rochus playing the semis of a masters series ( Hamburg ) , and the new system will help to increase quality and potential of the last rounds since in theory the good players will play more final rounds now . Sometimes I have the feeling some people only love some sports because of the upsets , while I don't need the upsets to love it or being a fan of it . :shrug: ( though It's true that upsets are also good for sports )

As I've said new format has also positive things and I want to wait to be experimented before drawing the drastic conclusions a lof of you are doing nowadays . I know you are an apologist of " new RR-bashing " but none of that bashing group is gonna make me buy some things.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 05:58 PM
You're only considering a certain part of the fanbase, that only follows tennis because of the no. 1 and no. 2 in the world.

There is another part of the fanbase who is actually seeking for excitement and appreciates the sport enough to be aware that there are other good players on the tour not named Federer or Nadal.

Majority finds Fed vs Rafa more interesting. Majority wins, the minority can go see the clowns who play in the challengers.

shotgun
09-27-2006, 06:03 PM
Majority finds Fed vs Rafa more interesting.

According to... ?

s.m.
09-27-2006, 06:03 PM
If we had been born and grown up with the round robin format being in force and ATP tried to change it for the current system then I'm sure people would attack ATP saying something similar to " you lost your mind , a system where if you lose the first match you are out of the tournament is a roulette , it's very unfair to be out just because you had a bad day , now weak players will have more chances to pass rounds and win tournaments and that's not good for the quality of final round matches , now clown players with a lucky week will play finals and blah blah blah ".


we will never know, will we ?
but for me sistem worked perectly
atp has some bigger issues than format of tournaments
you have abusing of the rules by players, you have dead players because of schedule, you have injuries
round robin will maybe solve the rest, but what about the mindset of a a player who knows that he can win a tournament with a loss

in fact now davydenko the iron man can say: i have a chance to win a tournament and still lose a match
maybe get some rest by the way
i dont care for that kind of sport
a sport with that shittty mindset
and it´s inevetable with this format
quality of matches will drop, intensity will drop
imo of course

and let´s not forget the stars protection
give us the masters with top 10 every week then
give us the masters tour
maybe throw in a clown or two

insted they should have worked out a better schedule
but that takes some thinking i guess

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 06:05 PM
Talking about fixed matches... I think that they would be fixed really often: for own good of a player or his compatriot, and it's not a secret that player actually bet on other scores (it's not only Kafelnikov)... it will get terribly corrupted.

And as I missed the discussion when the changes were announced, can anybody enlighten me, how long will one tournament last and what about Masters Series which are played week-by-week? And what about the Slams?

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:07 PM
I don't see no joke in making groups of 3 players as ATP seems to want to experiment next year . I'm against group of 4 players though , since there would be a lot of dead matches .

Santoro was only an example of the hypocrisy in this subject .


There are always the possibility of dead matches in RR with 3 or 96 in a group or has that slipped your mind.

As for Santoro, why is it hypocrisy? Not everything is so black and white. Are you related to de Villiers by the way?

When that soccer rule was changed the goalkeepers weren't the happiest persons on Earth . Usually the rules changes aren't welcome for everybody.

Did you actually remember what it was like when they changed it? It needed to be done for the overall good of the game, this is the difference, this is solely catering to the fat cats.

That rule is also good for the lot of fans who are saving money a whole year to go to another city or country to see their idols . That just's one example of the positive things of this new format .

Personally I prefer to see another player than C.Rochus playing the semis of a masters series ( Hamburg ) , and the new system will help to increase quality and potential of the last rounds since in theory the good players will play more final rounds now . Sometimes I have the feeling people only love some sports because of the upsets , while I don't need the upsets to love it or being a fan of it . :shrug: ( though It's true that upsets are also good for sports )

See the same people over and over again. It happens now already, with a RR it will be worse, the familarity isn't going to make it any better, they keep seeing them all the time. The public will get bored and just see many early round Champs League games for empty stadia on the whole.

As I've said new format has also positive things and I want to wait to be experimented before drawing the drastic conclusions a lof of you are doing nowadays . I know you are an apologist of " new RR-bashing " but none of that bashing group is gonna make me buy some things.

Form their own tour as I said, just take the top 16 and let them tour around. Do it pretty like the Champions tour is now. There is the problem solved.

nobama
09-27-2006, 06:08 PM
LOL. Roger the dominant No. 1 for three years thinks the RR format "makes sense", but the Hawkeye system doesn't.

Tee hee! He silly. :):scratch: what does RR have to do with Hawkeye?

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:09 PM
Talking about fixed matches... I think that they would be fixed really often: for own good of a player or his compatriot, and it's not a secret that player actually bet on other scores (it's not only Kafelnikov)... it will get terribly corrupted.

And as I missed the discussion when the changes were announced, can anybody enlighten me, how long will one tournament last and what about Masters Series which are played week-by-week? And what about the Slams?

Kaffe is from the only guy or the PMK to have fixed matches. Many do it and sometimes it's easier to do it like that and albeit not right at all.

The tournaments are meant to last the same time, but there will be more matches. The ITF run the Slams and they will be the same for now.

oz_boz
09-27-2006, 06:12 PM
Majority finds Fed vs Rafa more interesting. Majority wins, the minority can go see the clowns who play in the challengers.

The majority will watch McEnroe on Delta Tour.

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 06:14 PM
Kaffe is from the only guy or the PMK to have fixed matches. Many do it and sometimes it's easier to do it like that and albeit not right at all.

The tournaments are meant to last the same time, but there will be more matches. The ITF run the Slams and they will be the same for now.
Actually, on challengers some players earn more on betting than on the court :shrug: I don't support it myself, to have things clear.

Thanks for explaination about the slams... since the challengers are held by ATP, which rules are to be out there, and what has been thought as for doubles? Thanks in advance :yeah:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:16 PM
Actually, on challengers some players earn more on betting than on the court :shrug: I don't support it myself, to have things clear.

Thanks for explaination about the slams... since the challengers are held by ATP, which rules are to be out there, and what has been thought as for doubles? Thanks in advance :yeah:

They haven't said anything about the Challengers yet, but nobody cares about players that play there in the grand scheme of things. As long as the big boys are protected that is all that counts.

s.m.
09-27-2006, 06:16 PM
Actually, on challengers some players earn more on betting than on the court :shrug:


yes
karanušić and tuksar again made some money today
and croatian population is a little richer
and they´ve pulled this shit for the 2nd time in 12 months

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 06:31 PM
yes
karanušić and tuksar again made some money today
and croatian population is a little richer
and they´ve pulled this shit for the 2nd time in 12 months
Tuksar... I saw that guy... Since I'm from press I guess I shouldn't speak up my opinion too loudly but I hope nobody minds this innocent smiley:

:haha:

Yes, of course nobody cares for challengers and futures events, and the players who actually sleep in ten in a small room at 1 star hostel with all tennis bags... It is not this kind of tennis that "fans" who discuss Federer / Nadal / Nalbandian rivalisation, and read Tursunov's blog would adore to watch...

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:36 PM
Tuksar... I saw that guy... Since I'm from press I guess I shouldn't speak up my opinion too loudly but I hope nobody minds this innocent smiley:

:haha:

Yes, of course nobody cares for challengers and futures events, and the players who actually sleep in ten in a small room at 1 star hostel with all tennis bags... It is not this kind of tennis that "fans" who discuss Federer / Nadal / Nalbandian rivalisation, and read Tursunov's blog would adore to watch...

That is the perfect reason to try and do as well as you can in the Challengers and the Futures, so they don't have to through that.

alfonsojose
09-27-2006, 06:45 PM
Kafelnikov : "i'm going to return to the ATP circuit"

Naranoc
09-27-2006, 06:45 PM
The ITF run the Slams and they will be the same for now.

They couldn't possibly even consider changing if for the Slams could they? Meddling in them would be far too much.

And if MTF is at all representitive of tennis fans, then I don't think RR will be welcomed at all, and might result in people switching off from the whole thing. Where on earth did they get the idea that fans would like it? :confused:

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 06:48 PM
Kafelnikov : "i'm going to return to teh ATP circuit"
Doesn't he enjoy poker anymore???

I used to like this guy so much :D

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:49 PM
They couldn't possibly even consider changing if for the Slams could they? Meddling in them would be far too much.

And if MTF is at all representitive of tennis fans, then I don't think RR will be welcomed at all, and might result in people switching off from the whole thing. Where on earth did they get the idea that fans would like it? :confused:

Anything can happen these days and I put nothing past them.

Well it depends on who you talk to really. It will get the bandwagoners on board cause yay it's cool and the starfuckers as well, but there is a reason the tennis food chain exists the way it is.

Imagine a boxing tournament, you lost the fight, but it's Ok you are a star, please come back or Asafa Powell for some reason doesn't get through his rounds, but lets leave a place for him in the final.

Neverstopfightin
09-27-2006, 06:49 PM
There are always the possibility of dead matches in RR with 3 or 96 in a group or has that slipped your mind.

In a 3 player group :

First match : Player A vs B
Second match : Loser of first match vs Player C
Third match : Winner of first match vs C

Where are the dead matches ??

As for Santoro, why is it hypocrisy? Not everything is so black and white. Are you related to de Villiers by the way?

I'm not related to Villiers but you aren't to Einstein either :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:50 PM
Doesn't he enjoy poker anymore???

I used to like this guy so much :D

He'd have to tank twice for the same amount of points, as if he'd want to do that. He only cared about the Slams.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:51 PM
I'm not related to Villiers but you aren't to Einstein neither :rolleyes:

No I am not German.

So doubles and singles are the same now? So there is no difference between the TMC and regular tournaments?

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 06:52 PM
I can imagine stars coming to Sopot and losing all matches in the row cos stars in Sopot or Bastad have other things to do than winning matches. In would be actually miserable for the crowd... except of the more sarcastic ones who love watching Funky Flo spanking famous asses with his doublehanded dropshot played from a jump.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:54 PM
In a 3 player group :

First match : Player A vs B
Second match : Loser of first match vs Player C
Third match : Player A vs C

Where are the dead matches ??



How do you know it's going to work that way? There are other combinations or has that escaped you?

By the end of a 2nd match the player is out and unless they play them all at the same time. Then it will be easy and in some cases more convienient to come second in the group as the next opponent will be a better match up for them and yes it has happened before.

Neverstopfightin
09-27-2006, 06:56 PM
How do you know it's going to work that way? There are other combinations or has that escaped you?

By the end of a 2nd match the player is out and unless they play them all at the same time. Then it will be easy and in some cases more convienient to come second in the group as the next opponent will be a better match up for them and yes it has happened before.

I've edited my message, there was a mistake because in my original message had chosen the player A as winner to make the example and...

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 06:59 PM
I've edited my message, there was a mistake because in my original message had chosen the player A as winner to make the example and...

I have already explained how it's possible to fix matches to get certain outcomes suitable for both parties. It happens now already, it will be even easier within RR format.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 07:02 PM
Simple.

Players like Federer, Nadal, Roddick make money for tennis and increase its popularity.
Players like Ljboho, Mirnyi, Santaro are unkwown and make close to no money for the sport.
Seeing two clowns play each other in the finals in not good for the popularity of the sport.
Tennis popularity is more important than some 50th ranked fool crying.

My logic is the light for MTF. Follow it.

Mirnyi has won more money than many top 20. Not forgetting he was a top-20 himself. You're talking about a doubles #3 ex #1, typing ape.

I, for instance, don't give a damn about the popularity of the sport. I don't want more people who know nothing about it coming here and discharging trash like this guy over here. Tennis is a traditional sport, not a circus, and we don't need it to become one right now. They have already let players dress like clowns. They have slowed the game to boredom. They have killed diversity. RR is the last step to kill the game per se.

I'm lauching the campaign: LIKE TENNIS? STONE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT RR!

s.m.
09-27-2006, 07:26 PM
Mirnyi has won more money than many top 20. Not forgetting he was a top-20 himself. You're talking about a doubles #3 ex #1, typing ape.


to continue on that note
ljubicic is a dc winner who on route beat us on us soil by himself
he has the most wins in live rubbers in dc history
that alone puts him in legend
nobody has to like him, but he has to be respected and recognized
and he will be eventually
if he did that 10 years+ ago people would have known him
but this is a new age...

Horatio Caine
09-27-2006, 07:37 PM
I think the most important thing is to limit EVERY player's schedule to 23 tournaments: 4 GS, 9 AMS, 10 optionals of which best 5 count.

That would kill the injury debate...of which I feel there is no debate anyway. The players that complain about the length of the season are often the ones that have played way more than they need to anyway :shrug:

I'm worried about match fixing next year and the lack of upsets in RR tournaments.

Horatio Caine
09-27-2006, 07:40 PM
Are you related to de Villiers by the way?

:haha: :silly:

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:13 PM
It is obvious that top players and tournament directors benefit. Apart from the possibility that they may win in a tournament even after losing in a qualifying round, the top players benefit from reducing the uncertainty over their schedule. Under the RR format, they are guaranteed 2 or 3 matches, so they can decide upon their scheduling in advance without the possibility of an early round upset.

The sport as a whole loses, apart from the (additional) possibilities of match fixing, the problem is that the format shrinks the playing field, thus discourages the emergence of new players who will not make it to the tournament. Furthermore, it lessens the importance of breakthrough victories for upcoming players.

I am glad that there are issues with the implementation of the new format. So far we have not heard any announcement that a tournament switches to RR, have we?

Merton
09-27-2006, 08:16 PM
Mirnyi has won more money than many top 20. Not forgetting he was a top-20 himself. You're talking about a doubles #3 ex #1, typing ape.

I, for instance, don't give a damn about the popularity of the sport. I don't want more people who know nothing about it coming here and discharging trash like this guy over here. Tennis is a traditional sport, not a circus, and we don't need it to become one right now. They have already let players dress like clowns. They have slowed the game to boredom. They have killed diversity. RR is the last step to kill the game per se.

I'm lauching the campaign: LIKE TENNIS? STONE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT RR!

That is a bit too primitive, torturing them on the rack and then either burning them alive or quartering them carries a more modern flavour.

wally1
09-27-2006, 08:21 PM
I really hate the RR proposal. Has anyone seen any evidence of any research the ATP has done that suggests the public actually like this idea?

One thing I fear is that once they've started down this road it will be hard for the ATP to revert back to the old system, for reasons of embarrassment if nothing else, and we'll be stuck with it for years (that's unless it's a complete disaster of course).

Nathaliia
09-27-2006, 08:21 PM
PS. Does it mean the top players for coming to tournaments like Stockholm, Umag etc. are going to be even extra paid now? :retard:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 08:53 PM
Go back to the stone age you old farts.

Tennis is evolving. Go and watch Kuerten and Muster's taped matches and keep saying they'll beat Nadal.

People evolve, they get better, smarter, stronger and faster. We don't need anymore clowns like Mirnyi in tennis anymore. Lets see talented players vs other talented players.

Doubles is another complete joke. Who watches it, it never gets tv rights.

Tennis will never become popular till the old fogies don't understand the real world.

Action Jackson
09-27-2006, 08:55 PM
Rafa = Fed Killa stick to trolling and instead of trying to come up with a semi-thoughtful analysis it doesn't suit you.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:00 PM
Hitler I am right, why do think tennis is not as popular as it was?

The reason is there are clowns like Ljuboho in the top ten.

For tennis fans you guys are weird. You don't want tennis to be popular. Popularity means more televised matches. I guess most people aren't as logical as me so they don't understand this.

Horatio Caine
09-27-2006, 09:00 PM
Rafa = Fed Killa stick to trolling and instead of trying to come up with a semi-thoughtful analysis it doesn't suit you.

:lol: :worship:

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:04 PM
Idiots in the past used to laugh when they were told the Earth was round and not flat.

Time will prove me right. My logic is far superior to most of the fools in MTF.

oz_boz
09-27-2006, 09:10 PM
You don't want tennis to be popular.

That is quite right, we want tennis to become less popular so idiots like you who started watching after Nadal appeared on the scene can go back to watching K-1 and WWF.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:12 PM
That is quite right, we want tennis to become less popular so idiots like you who started watching after Nadal appeared on the scene can go back to watching K-1 and WWF.

So you don't want tennis to be shown on tv. I watched tennis even when Agassi was in his prime you fool.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 09:13 PM
That is quite right, we want tennis to become less popular so idiots like you who started watching after Nadal appeared on the scene can go back to watching K-1 and WWF.

You've earned lifetime respect from me.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:16 PM
You guys don't understand business. I must be talking to a bunch of highschoolers or to seniors.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 09:18 PM
You guys don't understand business. I must be talking to a bunch of highschoolers or to seniors.

If you're so upfront, why are you here and not in the stock exchange making millions?

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:21 PM
If you're so upfront, why are you here and not in the stock exchange making millions?

I am currently in university. So I am going to finish my degree before I head into the financial field.

Glenn me and you normally disagree
but how can you not want the popularity of tennis to grow.

We will be able to see live matches and more tournies on tv. I hate the tennis coverage on North American tv. I guess it must be better where you live.

I want more tennis courts and more tennis on tv and I will support anything which brings that to fruition. I don't understand why tennis fans would not support the above.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 09:24 PM
I'm against RR. That's idiot and an insult to the sport. Tennis doesn't need new "know-it-all" idiots that have no clue about the sport.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:26 PM
I'm against RR. That's idiot and an insult to the sport. Tennis doesn't need new "know-it-all" idiots that have no clue about the sport.

I say it is worth it if it results in more tv contracts and tennis courts. Popularity has its plus points.

GlennMirnyi
09-27-2006, 09:28 PM
I say it is worth it if it results in more tv contracts and tennis courts. Popularity has its plus points.

If the price to pay is killing the sport, then I'll be always against it.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2006, 09:28 PM
If the price to pay is killing the sport, then I'll be always against it.

The matches will be tennis. Only the format of the matches will change.

Geniey2g
09-27-2006, 09:32 PM
I'm leaning towards agreeing with Santoro, actually. Something not quite right about losing, but still having a chance of winning...
hmm.

NicoFan
09-27-2006, 11:10 PM
Fabrice Santoro denounces the fact that "only economic arguments are behind all this. Loosing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept."


:worship:

Via
09-28-2006, 12:03 AM
Some people don't seem to see that a system that protects top players, protects the *current* crop of top players. the no.1 player in 5 years' time, may be ranked outside top 100 right now. and badly needs a break, an upset or two in early rounds in smaller tournaments, in order to come through the rankings. he's no mr popularity right now, but one day he will be.

so why should any fair, competitive sport protect a current set of top players? what about the future? looking at their comments, no wonder rafa is delighted, and roger tries hard to contain his delight :rolleyes:

i'm sorry that most media will not report on the comments from mahut and serra. i wonder why the player representatives for the lower ranked players don't seem to be saying anything. or is that atp 'no diss policy' as suggested before working perfectly now?

Kalliopeia
09-28-2006, 12:49 AM
Lets see talented players vs other talented players.


If they're so talented they don't need round robin. Does Roger Federer need it? No of course not, but he likes the idea because it means he doesn't have to work so hard. Same with Rafael Nadal. And that's pathetic. You show up and if you can't bring your game and win when it counts, you deserve to be out of a tournament. None of this second chance nonsense. Losers shouldn't win tournaments. It's that simple. Even if it's my favorite player. I'd love to see Nadal get to the final of every tournament he plays but if he loses in the first round he deserves to be out. The guy who beat him deserves to move on through. Most of the time the best players get through now anyway, do they really need manufactured advantages?

And round robin isn't going to get tennis on tv more often. At least not in the US. The networks still aren't going to care.

Dusk Soldier
09-28-2006, 01:41 AM
Imagine a boxing tournament, you lost the fight, but it's Ok you are a star, please come back or Asafa Powell for some reason doesn't get through his rounds, but lets leave a place for him in the final.Actually, in track & field you can lose a race and then still win the medal. :rolleyes:

Puschkin
09-28-2006, 05:58 AM
I mean it would need someone like Gasquet or someone of note to speak out or someone could call their bluff and form their own tour.

It was Gasquet who spoke out against this crap, directly after it was announced. http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4030018&postcount=1

But he did not get much support by his colleagues. And he is not the type of character to lead a revolution, I feel.

Action Jackson
09-28-2006, 03:24 PM
Actually, in track & field you can lose a race and then still win the medal. :rolleyes:

Only gold counts in track and field, who remembers 2nd and 3rd placegetters?

rofe
09-28-2006, 04:24 PM
Some people don't seem to see that a system that protects top players, protects the *current* crop of top players. the no.1 player in 5 years' time, may be ranked outside top 100 right now. and badly needs a break, an upset or two in early rounds in smaller tournaments, in order to come through the rankings. he's no mr popularity right now, but one day he will be.

so why should any fair, competitive sport protect a current set of top players? what about the future? looking at their comments, no wonder rafa is delighted, and roger tries hard to contain his delight :rolleyes:

i'm sorry that most media will not report on the comments from mahut and serra. i wonder why the player representatives for the lower ranked players don't seem to be saying anything. or is that atp 'no diss policy' as suggested before working perfectly now?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$

rrfnpump
09-28-2006, 04:33 PM
why cant tennis just stay tennis? :sad:

Pfloyd
09-28-2006, 04:35 PM
Is the ATP planning to use this system at one point in the GS?

rrfnpump
09-28-2006, 04:37 PM
Is the ATP planning to use this system at one point in the GS?

Grand Slams = ITF

Action Jackson
09-28-2006, 04:38 PM
Is the ATP planning to use this system at one point in the GS?

Disney, doesn't have that much power.

rofe
09-28-2006, 04:41 PM
Disney, doesn't have that much power.

Thankfully - though I won't put it past the ITF to "learn" some lessons from the ATP if the rise in ticket sales next year is linked to the RR format. :rolleyes:

Dusk Soldier
09-28-2006, 09:56 PM
Only gold counts in track and field, who remembers 2nd and 3rd placegetters?
You can get 2nd and third place in the early rounds, and then still win the gold medal by winning the final.

Or in other words, you don't need to win every race to win the gold medal.

Or, in other words, that was a bad analogy.

Action Jackson
09-29-2006, 07:17 AM
You can get 2nd and third place in the early rounds, and then still win the gold medal by winning the final.

Or in other words, you don't need to win every race to win the gold medal.

Or, in other words, that was a bad analogy.

Or in other words look at the boxing analogy that was made earlier within that same post. You lose a fight in a tournament, then just cause they are the highest ranked boxers, does that mean they come back in the event? You know the answer to that.

Geniey2g
09-29-2006, 08:53 AM
You show up and if you can't bring your game and win when it counts, you deserve to be out of a tournament. None of this second chance nonsense. Losers shouldn't win tournaments. It's that simple. Even if it's my favorite player. I'd love to see Nadal get to the final of every tournament he plays but if he loses in the first round he deserves to be out. The guy who beat him deserves to move on through. Most of the time the best players get through now anyway, do they really need manufactured advantages?

Exactly.
CLOSE THREAD.

star
09-30-2006, 03:02 AM
The top 8 players already have extra ranking points because of TMC. :shrug:

I can live with that (barely) because I guess that's their reward for having a fabulous year, but if round robins are to be played in many tournaments, we will never see any movement at the top of the game. Is that what promoters think the tennis fans want? I'm really confused about where they think they are taking the sport. Are they thinking long term, or only thinking about their particular tournaments?

Lee
09-30-2006, 04:06 AM
I can live with that (barely) because I guess that's their reward for having a fabulous year, but if round robins are to be played in many tournaments, we will never see any movement at the top of the game. Is that what promoters think the tennis fans want? I'm really confused about where they think they are taking the sport. Are they thinking long term, or only thinking about their particular tournaments?

So far, ATP is run in the way, "Whatever tournament directors want, they get it" Yes, it's mind bloggling. Especially the top players are only thinking about themselves, not the good of the games. But their career is short so I would put more the blame on the management guys.

Shy
09-30-2006, 05:16 AM
So, I guest that they want Roger vs RAfa in the final 95% of the time.

idolwatcher1
09-30-2006, 06:23 AM
How many optional tournaments do both Roger and Rafa enter? out of all the optional tournaments held each year?

I♥PsY@Mus!c
09-30-2006, 11:59 AM
Fabrice Santoro denounces the fact that "only economic arguments are behind all this. Loosing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept."

Nicolas Mahut is disillusioned: "We didn't have a say in all this. They only consulted the Nadals and Federers, who found it a good thing..."

Florent Serra confirms: "The best players will be protected. They will have the opportunity to remake themselves".

And Richard Gasquet, without really being against this change, regrets that " the defeat will be less penalized than today". He also adds "Federer can loose once but not twice".


You say what I want to say,4 lovely French players! :rocker2:
This format sucks! :armed: Federer and Nadal will have more chances in Final! :rolleyes: The more the 1 of 2 gods wins,the more I hate tennis! :mad:

LaTenista
09-30-2006, 12:14 PM
How many optional tournaments do both Roger and Rafa enter? out of all the optional tournaments held each year?

Off the top of my head I think Fed played Doha, Dubai, and Halle while Rafa played Marseille, Dubai, Barcelona, and Queen's Club. So this year Dubai was the only not mandatory event they both played and they met in the final.

idolwatcher1
09-30-2006, 04:59 PM
Off the top of my head I think Fed played Doha, Dubai, and Halle while Rafa played Marseille, Dubai, Barcelona, and Queen's Club. So this year Dubai was the only not mandatory event they both played and they met in the final.
So about 85% of the optional tournaments held each year (45/53) won't include either Roger or Rafa, and maybe one or two will include both? Mkay :p

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 08:50 AM
It seems that Roger Federer has changed his mind about the RR format.

http://tennis-masters-madrid.com/eng/news/NewsDetail_563.htm

Q. Some ATP tournaments next season may have a round robin format. Do you like that idea, or are you skeptical?

ROGER FEDERER: I thought it was an interesting idea in the first place. Now I'm not a big fan anymore of it. So that's how my feelings went. I don't know when and how it's going to happen and which tournaments and so forth, but that's how my feeling went actually.

Q. To follow up on the round robin, why did you change your mind on the round robin?

ROGER FEDERER: I changed my mind?

Q. Your mind on the round robin, you're not too into it.

ROGER FEDERER: Oh, why.

Q. The second question is how come. At the beginning of the year you didn't like it too much, and now you do. If yes, why?

ROGER FEDERER: The round robin, I don't know. I was just asked what I thought, the round robin format. It could kind of work. You get to see the best players maybe twice at least or three times, but then I think you lose the first round, you want to stick around for maybe not even being able to qualify. It's kind of maybe a losing battle, I think.

I started to think about it more often. I just got some doubts, just keep the knock out system. That's so unique about tennis, one bad day, you're out. That's what like the Hawkeye. I didn't like it in the first place. I still don't like it today. That hasn't changed.

Q. Why?

ROGER FEDERER: Why? It's unnecessary.

Ok, Roger time to tell Disney about the problems.

FSRteam
10-18-2006, 09:23 AM
If fed thinks it is a bad idea, I hope they'll listen to him!!!

I was afraid santoros and mahuts would not be able to avoid this ridicul RR format to take place but now if the n°1 dislikes it, we have more chance not see this happen!!! At least I hope so!

Otherwise, isn't there a kind of petition we can sign to say we don't want this format to come true?

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 09:28 AM
If you want to do anything people should send faxes all at the same time to the relevant ATP offices or mass mail them as in typing a letter and paying postage. On line petitions don't work.

Well it's up to Federer in a way to show some leadership, as he has a position of influence. It's called the ATP and not the ATD (Association of Tournament Directors).

FSRteam
10-18-2006, 09:40 AM
If you want to do anything people should send faxes all at the same time to the relevant ATP offices or mass mail them as in typing a letter and paying postage. On line petitions don't work.

Well it's up to Federer in a way to show some leadership, as he has a position of influence. It's called the ATP and not the ATD (Association of Tournament Directors).

Ok, well I don't know the ATP address and I don't have their fax number but I am so angry about this shitty system and apparently I'm not the only fan to be that I think we should all express our dislike towards this format!!! :mad:

To win a tournament after losing one match is ridiculous! That's why I was always happy when fed won his masters tournaments (2003-2004) without losing a match!

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 09:44 AM
Ok, well I don't know the ATP address and I don't have their fax number but I am so angry about this shitty system and apparently I'm not the only fan to be that I think we should all express our dislike towards this format!!! :mad:

To win a tournament after losing one match is ridiculous! That's why I was always happy when fed won his masters tournaments (2003-2004) without losing a match!

I will find the contact details for you and the European branch is based in Monte Carlo.

FSRteam
10-18-2006, 09:48 AM
I will find the contact details for you and the European branch is based in Monte Carlo.

Thanks gw!!! :)

Action Jackson
10-18-2006, 09:54 AM
Thanks gw!!! :)


http://www.atptennis.com/en/aboutatp/contact.asp

ATP Europe

Monte-Carlo Sun
74 Boulevard d'Italie
98000 Monaco
Tel.: +377-97-97-04-04
Fax: +377-97-97-04-00

FSRteam
10-18-2006, 10:04 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/aboutatp/contact.asp

ATP Europe

Monte-Carlo Sun
74 Boulevard d'Italie
98000 Monaco
Tel.: +377-97-97-04-04
Fax: +377-97-97-04-00

Thanks again gw!!!

Kalliopeia
10-18-2006, 10:45 AM
Well I wasn't able to get out of that WHY Roger doesn't like it but I don't care really since I hate it so much I'm just glad to see a top player agreeing. I don't know how much it will matter though.

nobama
10-18-2006, 11:18 AM
Well I wasn't able to get out of that WHY Roger doesn't like it but I don't care really since I hate it so much I'm just glad to see a top player agreeing. I don't know how much it will matter though. I didn't quite understand either, except that the more he thought about it the more he started to dislike it. Now if only he can convince the :retard: at the ATP.

*julie*
10-18-2006, 11:28 AM
Now if only he can convince the :retard: at the ATP.

Yes but reading his words, I am not sure he wants to get involved that much. I hope to be wrong.

Puschkin
10-18-2006, 11:37 AM
Yes but reading his words, I am not sure he wants to get involved that much.

:devil: And this is bad. He is the number 1, his voice would be more difficult to ignore than all those little Frenchies :p objecting, even if I agree totally with them.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 04:49 AM
Yes but reading his words, I am not sure he wants to get involved that much. I hope to be wrong.

Well it's pretty clear that Federer has realised that the RR isn't good for the game and as for whether he gets involved more than he is at the moment, is something he should think about.

Since he is one of the big men around and if he is openly against it, then he can use his position to further the objections and get some people around him to follow as well.

Sofyaxo
10-19-2006, 05:32 AM
First I just want to say that I think they will try it and that it just won't work, and they will find out that the fans just don't like it.

It is a money thing. If you remember the players are also getting a "pay raise" I don't remember the number but the prize money is going way up. That would be enough for me if I was a top player to keep my mouth shut and enjoy the extra chance for more money.

They think this is going to get people to watch the sport. The only thing good about a Federer/Nadal match is the shots and all the technical things to tennis, and the guys if you think they are attractive. They really aren't that interesting for people to watch. Federer has nearly no emotion, and though Nadal is slightly entertaining he does get in a zone and a fist pump and jump only go so far.

They need to promote players as personalities, not give them extra chances so maybe people will see them and like them. Tennis is never going to be as big as full contact team sports, and they are doing very stupid things to try and get there.

Oh, and people do buy tickets to see people, but most of them like enough players to enjoy the tournament anyway. If you like a player that isn't likely to be at the end of a major tournament so it would be a 'waste of money' then they sure as hell aren't going to get that far in round robin. Oh yay you get to see them lose twice and there confidence is even lower coming out of it. Awesome.

You lose, you lose. End story.

Frank Winkler
10-19-2006, 05:43 AM
Its oviously in order to make more money from tennis.
How?
The big namew will play more. Therefor t.v will have an easier time attracting more sponsors and charging more for it. They can gurarntee at least two matches by the two top players.
Personally I have allways disliked round robin in tennis. It proves notthing.
Somone who looses more can end up winning.
Also you need fewer players to stage a tournament.
again money saving for the organizers. Bad for the average and below average player.
The players should be up in arms about this.
However it is to the finacial advantage of the top 30 players.
The old ploy divide and conquer.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 05:45 AM
Yes, it seems the ATP is the ATD the Association of Tournament Directors.

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 09:20 AM
This was done in 2000, just change the names of Sampras and Rafter and you will see some similarities. It has always been about the Tournament Directors though not in name. I will paste an old excerpt from a Medvedev interview.

Why are the other guys on the tour afraid to speak up and give their opinions?

My opinion is that some of them don’t care. If you ask Sampras, he’d say, everything is fine. I’m making my money with the ATP Tour, and I’m happy about that. I was once a representative of the Top 10 players. And when you try to get these guys to work for something, nine out of 10 guys would say, I don’t care. Everything is fine. If you explain that this way is better, they reply, we understand, but we don’t care. That was at the time of Becker, Edberg, Sampras.

Are there any players who care?

Yeah, I would say Rafter cares. I think Agassi actually cares although he doesn’t always show it. He would be willing to step up and do a little revolution and be behind the players and not behind the ATP Tour.

On March 10, 1999 former world No. 1 Thomas Muster told the German newspaper Die Welt: I look at the ATP not so much as a representative of players but as a firm that in marketing even works against the players. I don’t like the way tennis is dominated by Americans. The problem is that tennis is governed by the Americans and financed by the Europeans. [ATP Tour CEO] Mark Miles must go, changes must come quickly, and the future of our sport is at stake.

Do you agree with Muster?

I agree with 90 percent of what Muster was saying because in the past the ATP has acted against [the best interests of] the players, and in favour of the tournaments. That’s a fact. Give me an example of that.

There are plenty of examples, believe me. In Estoril this year, I was to play a semi-final match scheduled not before 2:30, following the women at noon. It rained the whole day until 2:45. Nobody notified me or told me anything. Then rain stopped and 10 minutes later the tour manager tells me, you’re on the court in 10 minutes. I said, Listen, the women have to play first. He says, No, no, we got the TV. You got to go first. So I had no warm-up, no warning. When it was raining, they should have at least said, you guys should warm up, indoors or something, because you might play as soon as the rain stops.

We went on the court cold, and we had to play in a drizzle, and the court became slippery. We talked to the chair umpire, and he said he had orders that we had to continue because we had TV. Now, what if the players got injured? What, instead, if we had striked and refused to go on the court? The ATP doesn’t care if somebody breaks his leg. All they care about is the tournament and the TV gets what they want.

The ATP should be defending us because it’s an association of tennis professionals, not tournaments. They don’t consistently do this. They’re becoming better. But when Muster spoke out, it was definitely way in favour of the tournaments.

Sunset of Age
10-19-2006, 10:21 AM
Wow, GWH, that's a pretty insightful interview...
Indeed, it's all a money-and-politics business. Too bad.

I hope Roger will SPEAK UP!

Action Jackson
10-19-2006, 10:29 AM
Medvedev was no fool and Muster knew what was going on. The ATP doesn't represent its players, but as I said change the names and the dates and the same thing is going on.

CarstenL01
10-19-2006, 10:49 AM
I don't like it, too...

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 10:07 AM
Federer and Nadal are on opposite sides of this debate and here is a recent article. This is the Rafalution in full force.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/sports/2006/October/sports_October759.xml&section=sports&subsection=tennis

Traditionalist Federer, innovator Nadal hold contrasting opinions
(DPA)

21 October 2006


MADRID — The top two men in tennis hold contrasting views on the level of innovation required for the ATP to drive the game forward.

Spain’s world number two Rafael Nadal is eager for change, revealing his “businessman” side as well with a ringing endorsements of the new round-robin format proposal as well as launching a trade union-style debate regarding a lengthening of tournaments.

Roger Federer, on the other hand, is perfectly satisfied with the status quo, which has served him well on the way to longtime domination as world number one.

Sticky situations

The cautious Swiss has for instance never been a fan of the newly introduced electronic Hawk-eye line-calling system. But he was smart enough to use it to his advantage to get out of a few sticky situations in a third-round win over Swede Robin Soderling at the Madrid Masters, with the computer confirming the Swiss eagle-eye when it came to disputed line-calls.

But even that display didn’t impress the nine-time Grand Slam champion, who reached the Spanish quarter-finals on a match-point decided by the computer.

“I won’t (be in favour of it), I will never be,” he said. “It turned out to be a crazy end (to the match) and was kind of funny waiting for the result on the match point. This has never happened before and I thought it was kind of silly.

“But it wouldn’t have made a difference to the result. I didn’t like (Hawk-eye) in the first place. I still don’t like it. That hasn’t changed,” he insisted

Federer has also called into question the wisdom of an experiment for next season to allow some smaller events to play in round-robin instead of traditional single-knockout format.

“It could kind of work,’ he said by way of lukewarm endorsement. “You get to see the best players maybe twice at least or three times.

“But then I think you lose the first round (or round robin), you want to stick around for maybe not even being able to qualify? It’s kind of maybe a losing battle, I have some doubts — just keep the knockout system. That’s what’s so unique about tennis, one bad day, you’re out.”

Increased length

Nadal, at age 20, is keen to give the fans what they want. If that means round-robin, the so be it. “People want to see Federer, or (Andy) Roddick, now perhaps me,” he said with some understatement. “This way, they will get to see them twice instead of once. If the number two or the number one lose in the first round it is a catastrophe for the tournament.”

Nadal voiced complaints about the increased length of the French Open, which began on a Sunday instead of a Monday, making it 15 days of Grand Slam play.

“We started playing on Sunday and we earned almost nothing more, but the tournament benefits a lot from that.”

Action Jackson
12-19-2006, 05:05 AM
This is from Andy Murray.

Q If you could change one thing on the ATP tour, what would it be?

Murray: I would like them not to do the round robin. I really think it's a bad idea. You have a pretty successful sport as it is and I think you are just opening the door to controversy. You'll get the situation that if Federer loses (which he does a few times a year), it's not going to be a surprise because he can still win the event. Up to now there has been no room for complacency: you lose a match and you are out of the tournament. Now you will be able to lose and still win a tournament. I just don't think that's the way tennis should be played. There's also more betting on tennis and the round robin format could make it easier to fix matches.

Action Jackson
12-19-2006, 05:16 AM
"I don’t like it, a win against a top ten player becomes less important. A player can beat Federer and not be able to qualify.”

- Edgardo Massa

nobama
12-19-2006, 11:28 AM
James Blake said something during TMC about RR - basically try it out, see what happens, if the fans like it great, if not, don't keep it. I have a feeling though, the interested parties who will benefit from RR most, will do everything in their power to keep it regardless. The players don't really have a say as it's apparent a good number don't like the idea but Mr Disney is moving forward with it anyway. :o That article you posted said Nadal is keen to give the fans what they want. Where is the evidence that fans want RR format?

cmurray
12-19-2006, 12:10 PM
James Blake said something during TMC about RR - basically try it out, see what happens, if the fans like it great, if not, don't keep it. I have a feeling though, the interested parties who will benefit from RR most, will do everything in their power to keep it regardless. The players don't really have a say as it's apparent a good number don't like the idea but Mr Disney is moving forward with it anyway. :o That article you posted said Nadal is keen to give the fans what they want. Where is the evidence that fans want RR format?

I think what he means is that fans want to see the top players play more, not that they asked for round robin. Personally, I don't think tennis fans are going to like this. For true fans it's a bastardization of the sport, for casual fans, it is too confusing.

And let's be honest....of COURSE Roger isn't for it. How is it going to benefit a guy who already makes whatever final he wants to? Now he has to play even MORE tennis to get to the same place he was at before. I'm not surprised Rafa is for it, as this truly is the most professionally beneficial to him. What are the odds that he's going to meet Berdych AND James to get knocked out of a tournament? TMC proved that Rafa will benefit from round robin.

Now I love Rafa to pieces, but I think tennis should be a "one strike and you're out" sport as it's always been. And as much as I bust on Roger, you gotta take your hat off to him. He's gotten where he is the old-fashioned way - by beating the shorts off of everyone.

NicoFan
12-19-2006, 12:21 PM
This is from Andy Murray.

Q If you could change one thing on the ATP tour, what would it be?

Murray: I would like them not to do the round robin. I really think it's a bad idea. You have a pretty successful sport as it is and I think you are just opening the door to controversy. You'll get the situation that if Federer loses (which he does a few times a year), it's not going to be a surprise because he can still win the event. Up to now there has been no room for complacency: you lose a match and you are out of the tournament. Now you will be able to lose and still win a tournament. I just don't think that's the way tennis should be played. There's also more betting on tennis and the round robin format could make it easier to fix matches.

GWH - do you have a link where you found that quote? Thanks...

Magus13
12-19-2006, 12:24 PM
I don't know about Nadal but Federer will not play in any RR tournaments next year.

Action Jackson
12-19-2006, 12:27 PM
GWH - do you have a link where you found that quote? Thanks...

It was in the British Tennis Magazine Ace and they had a Q and A with Murray.

NicoFan
12-19-2006, 12:42 PM
Thanks GWH!

Neely
12-19-2006, 01:12 PM
Thanks to all for this great collection of player as well as personal comments :worship:

I myself am still a bit splitted to make up my mind before I saw how it will turn out overall. Playing throught the theoretical scenario before its introduction does not always yield the most reliable results, even more so, I guess, in this case maybe. So far, I personally have more a tendency to welcome the new format for some selected tournaments and to see at least how it turns out before I make the final judgement. IMO, there are on both positions good reasons to like or to dislike it. I myself don't worry too much about the acceptance of a winner if he lost a RR match. I don't know a World Cup or Euro winner in football was less accepted because the team lost a match in RR or tied matches in RR... and there was also a change from knock-out to RR format (it was even increased), and it is a huge success. Analogically, the same applies to some other sports, too.

Also, even if it turns out to be unsuccessful in tennis, there is a way back again. Rules changes were reversed in some sports after they saw it is not good, back to the drawing board and learn from this experience. And, as somebody else noted already, changes in general are rather seen critically first - whether justifiably so or not will tell us the time. Yes, I wouldn't argue there are monetary reasons behind it - but I'm asking you: where isn't this the case nowadays? Either way, whether it is knock-out or RR, I don't have anything of the money tennis generates in any form anyway. After all, they're still playing tennis. I will have to see if the RR format changes my attitude towards, liking or perception of tennis.

tangerine_dream
12-19-2006, 04:17 PM
Murray brings up a good point about fixed matches and betting.

uNIVERSE mAN
12-19-2006, 04:29 PM
I see the atp calendar consisting of some RR events and mostly traditional events, the trade-off will be that the RR events will be all optionals and those players that hate it will never play in those tournaments like Federer this year.

Action Jackson
12-19-2006, 04:29 PM
I don't know a World Cup or Euro winner in football was less accepted because the team lost a match in RR or tied matches in RR... and there was also a change from knock-out to RR format (it was even increased), and it is a huge success. Analogically, the same applies to some other sports, too.

It's not the same sport and football is not a good example, considering one is a team and the other individual. As has been said already the Champs League only gets interesting when they are out of the RR phase, the format is there just to protect the star teams, no different to RR in tennis.

nobama
12-19-2006, 05:44 PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061219.TEBBUTT19/TPStory/Sports
Several changes volleyed around
TOM TEBBUTT

It appears the spit has hit the can, so to speak, as the factions in tennis try to cough up solutions to their problems.

After years of relative peace among the principal players -- the women's WTA Tour, the ATP men's tour and the world governing body and ally of the Grand Slam events, the International Tennis Federation -- power struggles again abound.

The most serious is between the WTA Tour, which wants to shorten its schedule and restrict the lower-level events top players can enter to try to solve its injury crisis, and the United States Tennis Association, the custodian of the U.S. Open.

As part of its Roadmap 2010 plan, the WTA Tour may drop some American events and weaken others by limiting how many elite players can play in them.

USTA officials, happy with the way the first two years of their U.S. Open Series have succeeded -- mostly in getting better television coverage -- are not pleased by moves that could reduce the number and quality of events. They are playing hardball. It was reported last week that the USTA board approved a $10-million (U.S.) contingency fund for possibly starting its own women's circuit.

WTA Tour chief executive officer Larry Scott and president Stacey Allaster, formerly of Toronto, are caught between implementing reforms and the USTA's power play.

On another front, the WTA Tour stubbornly continues its experiment with on-court coaching.

There was an almost universal chorus from big-name player such as Amélie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Kim Clijsters and Serena Williams against on-court coaching at the time it was introduced at the Rogers Cup in Montreal and used in an event in New Haven, Conn., last summer.

Among arguments against it are that it is unfair to players without coaches, contrary to the principle of player self-reliance and susceptible to abuse by unscrupulous coaches. Yet, on-court coaching will again be tested at events in 2007, after the Australian Open.

All is also not well with the ATP.

New CEO Etienne de Villiers, a former Walt Disney Co. executive, is rapidly remaking the face of the game.

He wants a major combined men's and women's tournament in Madrid in May before the French Open, but has run into serious opposition from spring Tennis Masters Series clay-court events in Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg, Germany.

Chinese officials are also upset because De Villiers has said he wants to move the year-end Masters Cup to Europe from its current location, Shanghai, China.

Any schedule changes won't be made until 2009, because 2007 is set and 2008 is crowded by the Summer Olympics in Beijing.

De Villiers is also tinkering with tradition. Wanting to guarantee top players more matches, the ATP will experiment with round-robin play in the early rounds of 13 lower-level events in 2007, during which there will be groups of three, with winners advancing to the round of 16 or the quarter-finals, depending on draw size.

Top men's player Roger Federer is opposed to the round-robin events, which include Queen's Club in London and Indianapolis, Ind., and is not entered in any of them.

Like the WTA Tour's on-court coaching, the ATP's round-robin plans are severely flawed.

Is it worth sacrificing the timeless drama of "lose-and-you-are-out" just so one more match is assured?

Won't it be too complicated and confusing with tiebreaker rules (if all three players finish 1-1, for example) for fans to follow? And what would draw sheets look like?

How did the players ever sign off on this? They will lose money because of smaller draws at some events and also have to play more because of the round-robin format.

Neely
12-19-2006, 06:58 PM
It's not the same sport and football is not a good example, considering one is a team and the other individual. As has been said already the Champs League only gets interesting when they are out of the RR phase, the format is there just to protect the star teams, no different to RR in tennis.
Obviously no sport except tennis itself would be the same sport as tennis. If nothing is a good example then, why don't people sit it out, wait and see how it's going before they're whining months in advance how bad the change is? As for the Champions League getting only interesting when they are out of the RR groups, this is true, but it has to do mostly with the fact that usually only the best teams are left which face each other, would it be a round of last 64 knock-out match with 1st and 2nd leg (even that involves two chances and therefore is no "real" knock-out in the strict sense) between Barcelona and Shakhtar Donetsk, such match-ups would be about as interesting or boring if the two would face in a RR match. Besides, if it were that easy saying that knock-out is the only true format, why do we even bother counting World Cup points in wintersports, racing sports etc and play football league schedules that are lasting for months. Just make one race or make everything a 16 or 32 knock-out field to determine who the Champ is, it's soooo easy and damn interesting...

Via
12-19-2006, 09:11 PM
How did the players ever sign off on this? They will lose money because of smaller draws at some events and also have to play more because of the round-robin format.
this disadvantage only applies to lower-ranked players. and of course they never get to sign off on anything.

i can't wait to see how adelaide turns out. for one thing, the tournament was never famous for its organisation and admin efficiency. i wish them luck - would be nice if it does turn out to be a great success even if the system isn't fair.

james_olympicman
12-19-2006, 11:18 PM
It's just a terrible idea. Isn't Indianapolis a masters' series? It is probably coincidenal that Federer isnt playing any- after all he said after losing to Murray that he would never play back to back masters again.
It also will bring the emphasis on fitness rather than talent, especiallly with young players like Murray and Djokovic who need to toughen up.
Even worse is that the round robin matches will probably be one sided and rubbish- each group being seeded. Do you really want to watch a bad wild card get smashed twice? Me neither.

Kalliopeia
12-19-2006, 11:22 PM
It's just a terrible idea. Isn't Indianapolis a masters' series? It is probably coincidenal that Federer isnt playing any- after all he said after losing to Murray that he would never play back to back masters again.

Indianapolis isn't a Masters, no.

Action Jackson
12-20-2006, 03:58 AM
Obviously no sport except tennis itself would be the same sport as tennis. If nothing is a good example then, why don't people sit it out, wait and see how it's going before they're whining months in advance how bad the change is?

I am only going to address this particular point cause I have already raised the others numerous times and don't need to see the point going over and over again.

If you are about just finding a tool to give the top players even a bigger advantage than they have now, which would favour the pockets of the Tournament Directors, then please say so.

As for football, well there are teams that are seeded and you do know CL wasn't done for the benefit of football, it was a bastardised version of trying to protect the best interests of the major clubs. This is not different with RR in tennis.

You want good examples of rule changes benefiting their respective sports?

- Having 3 pts for a win instead of 2 in football, giving greater incentive for teams to try and win games.

- Banning the handling of the backpass by goalkeepers which was a blight on the game and it forced defenders and goalkeepers to adjust and it made it more watchable.

- Volleyball instigating that every point was a serve point instead of what they had before when a point could only be won on serve and having an extra player.

The game is faster, more technical, better to watch and these specific changes were thought about first and foremost, whereas Mr Disney is just throwing things out for the sake of it.

So if you want to compare an individual sport try a boxing tournament. This is won by the fighter who has not lost a fight against his opponent and not someone who got given a second chance and that's why the tennis is and should be. RR only works for Masters and World Team Cup, as has been said ad nauseam.

binkygirl
12-20-2006, 07:31 AM
Another practical thing: What about the rankings? How will they dole out points for this? It doesn't seem fair that the players at the top would be able to double up on ranking points.

That is definitely an issue. It seems like it will be harder for lower ranked players to break through and that is not fair. Its almost as if the tour just wants the 'star players' on courts more so that they can generate more cash. What disgusting greed. This is not how the game is meant to be played. First, they kill doubles and now this garbage.

Neely
12-20-2006, 12:40 PM
If you are about just finding a tool to give the top players even a bigger advantage than they have now, which would favour the pockets of the Tournament Directors, then please say so.
Of course I say so, I never said something else and as I stated already, almost no change made or thought about nowadays is not for monetary reasons. To some part also fault of the athletes.

Yes, of course all good examples for useful rule changes that you stated, I didn't doubt they exist. As for boxing tournaments, there are hardly -if any at all- pro boxing tournaments. The pros fight it out wihtin the big boxing organizations with their respective challenge systems. That's again different from a knock-out tournament. But to use another example, table tennis is using combined group and knock-out rounds together with knock-out rounds only for ProTour tournaments successfully since some time, and they are also an idividual sport and, futhermore, one which underwent a lot of other changes recently as well (new ball, new counting system, stricter material rules). They all had one in common, many people didn't like the change and condemned it in advance. So, as I said above, I just want to see how it turns out for tennis before I make my final judgement and if it's great I myself would like tennis as well as before :shrug:

KaxMisha
12-20-2006, 01:04 PM
Of course I say so, I never said something else and as I stated already, almost no change made or thought about nowadays is not for monetary reasons. To some part also fault of the athletes.

Yes, of course all good examples for useful rule changes that you stated, I didn't doubt they exist. As for boxing tournaments, there are hardly -if any at all- pro boxing tournaments. The pros fight it out wihtin the big boxing organizations with their respective challenge systems. That's again different from a knock-out tournament. But to use another example, table tennis is using combined group and knock-out rounds together with knock-out rounds only for ProTour tournaments successfully since some time, and they are also an idividual sport and, futhermore, one which underwent a lot of other changes recently as well (new ball, new counting system, stricter material rules). They all had one in common, many people didn't like the change and condemned it in advance. So, as I said above, I just want to see how it turns out for tennis before I make my final judgement and if it's great I myself would like tennis as well as before :shrug:

I'll chime in on the table tennis. Very few tournaments use round robin play. Out of the major ones, it's only the World Cup (not the World Championship, obviously). In tennis, it's only the Masters Cup. There's no group stage in regular Pro Tour events, in the Pro Tour Grand Finals (roughly the equivalent of the Master's Cup), in the Olympic Games or in the World Championship. Round robin is only used for the qualification stage - same as in tennis. So my question basically is - what the hell are you talking about? :wavey:

Action Jackson
12-20-2006, 01:14 PM
Of course I say so, I never said something else and as I stated already, almost no change made or thought about nowadays is not for monetary reasons. To some part also fault of the athletes.

They have enough advantages anyway cause they worked for the top positions, the whole benefits of better seeding, bigger tournament guarantees, their own car at certain events etc etc. They really don't need anymore.

Well considering pro boxing is different from the amateurs, but even then for the most part they have to fight their way back to title status. There are plenty of amateur boxing tournaments around and they operate on the same principle, you lose, you are out. There are more pressing things to deal with than stuffing up the game.

As for table tennis KaxMisha explained it very clearly, about how RR is used in these events. If they want to improve the product, then tinkering with the basic concept of the game isn't the way of doing it.

Neely
12-20-2006, 01:29 PM
I'll chime in on the table tennis. Very few tournaments use round robin play. Out of the major ones, it's only the World Cup (not the World Championship, obviously). In tennis, it's only the Masters Cup. There's no group stage in regular Pro Tour events, in the Pro Tour Grand Finals (roughly the equivalent of the Master's Cup), in the Olympic Games or in the World Championship. Round robin is only used for the qualification stage - same as in tennis. So my question basically is - what the hell are you talking about? :wavey:
I must have missed that ATP tennis already uses Round robin for qualifying :eek: I'm surprised to read this now :eek: If I had thought of that, I would not have pointed out that combined round robin and knock-out play works in other tournaments, too.

KaxMisha
12-20-2006, 01:44 PM
I must have missed that ATP tennis already uses Round robin for qualifying :eek: I'm surprised to read this now :eek: If I had thought of that, I would not have pointed out that combined round robin and knock-out play works in other tournaments, too.

So your point was that table tennis does NOT use a system similar to the round robin system that will be introduced next year? Okay... That makes a lot of sense! Or not... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Neely
12-20-2006, 01:58 PM
So your point was that table tennis does NOT use a system similar to the round robin system that will be introduced next year? Okay... That makes a lot of sense! Or not... :confused: :confused: :confused:
No, not that. I hope I can explain it to you. My point was that group stage and knock-out rounds can get along for individual events also. But when I read that you wrote "Round robin is only used for the qualification stage - same as in tennis", I was a bit shocked (reason was the 'same as in tennis') because I did honestly not know/not notice that round robin is already used for qualifying in tennis! And therefore, this made my previous post useless because I wanted to show that RR and knock-out can coexist in a tournament, not only TMC or World Team Cup.

I wanted to illustrate: If you can play big qualifying group stages like in table tennis and then move on to the knock-out system, why can't you have group games and knock-out games as a part of the main draw then, too? It's not much different, just a different name. Imagine the qualifying would be called "1st round", and the first round of the main draw "2nd round".

KaxMisha
12-20-2006, 02:10 PM
No, not that. I hope I can explain it to you. My point was that group stage and knock-out rounds can get along for individual events also. But when I read that you wrote "Round robin is only used for the qualification stage - same as in tennis", I was a bit shocked (reason was the 'same as in tennis') because I did honestly not know/not notice that round robin is already used for qualifying in tennis! And therefore, this made my previous post useless because I wanted to show that RR and knock-out can coexist in a tournament, not only TMC or World Team Cup.

I wanted to illustrate: If you can play big qualifying group stages like in table tennis and then move on to the knock-out system, why can't you have group games and knock-out games as a part of the main draw then, too? It's not much different, just a different name. Imagine the qualifying would be called "1st round", and the first round of the main draw "2nd round".

Oh, okay. See, I thought you were sarcastic using those :eek: smileys. Hahaha. :D

As for the question posed - the qualification doesn't really matter. By this, I mean that it doesn't decide the outcome of the tournament (realistically - I know it could theoretically). Therefore, no one cares about the format of the qualification rounds. Most people don't even think of the qualifications as part of the tournament. This is why the round robin format of the qualification doesn't bother people. However, using a round robin format in the part of the tournament that most consider the actual tournament bugs a lot of people. It's not the same thing.

Neely
12-20-2006, 02:22 PM
Glad you understood why I was confused as I read your comment about round robin already being used for qualifying in tennis.

Sure KaxMisha, I see your point and admit the situation is, nevertheless, different somehow.

Overall, I personally just don't see the group stage for the early main draw as such an affront to tennis before I know how it turns out after this format is practised for some time.

Conita
12-20-2006, 10:13 PM
such a bad idea
i agree with Gasquet
players like Federer hardly lose once let alone twice!
so a guy plays against fed best of 3 or 5 depending on the tourney manages to beat him, for what?
fed will still be in the draw and most probably win the next 2 matches...
is a lost hope for every other player

Shrinking Violet
12-21-2006, 02:42 AM
More from Andy Murray - "I don't like it because it favours the top players, big time," he said. "And I just don't get why there's a need to change tennis from being a knock-out sport where you can play great one day, and horribly the next. Now you don't have to be switched on from the first day because you can lose and still end up winning the tournament.

"Imagine Federer loses at a tournament with a round-robin format next year. He lost only five times this year. If you have round-robin, and one of the times that he loses is in the group stage, well he can still win the tournament, and so it's not going to be as big a shock when the big players lose. They're still in the tournament. And when you've only got three players in a group, imagine everyone is on one win each. You could potentially beat Federer and lose your next match and go out on sets won or games won."

The British No 1 believes the format could also lead to difficulties with gambling. "I just think that it's going to be complicated to work out," he said. "Betting in tennis could just go through the roof. Before it was more obvious. Previously if loads of bets went on someone to go out in the first round it was more obvious. But now you can bet on how many matches someone is going to win, and how do you know if it's a conspiracy or if someone is cheating? Little things like that could end up becoming a big deal."

And from Roger Federer - "Just keep the knockout system," Switzerland's world No 1 said. "That's so unique about tennis – you have one bad day and you are out."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/12/21/sthodg21.xml

Action Jackson
12-27-2006, 09:49 AM
This was from an interview an Austrian website with Benji Becker.

Full interview below.

http://www.sport1.at/128+M51d30850d7e.html

Sport1: Nächstes Jahr führt die ATP-Tour einige Neuerungen wie das Gruppen-System ein. Wie stehst du dazu?

Becker: Ich spiele bei der Premiere in Adelaide und kann erst dann wirklich meine Meinung dazu sagen. Ich bin aber immer offen für Neuigkeiten und probiere selbst auch gerne einiges aus. Am Anfang gibt es sicher noch einige Kinderkrankheiten. Ich glaube aber, dass es eine gute Veränderung ist und es bei den Leuten gut ankommen kann.

The short version is that he thinks RR is a good idea in theory and is playing in Adelaide and can only give his real opinion on it after that.

rrfnpump
12-27-2006, 12:38 PM
Benjamin :smash:

Sunset of Age
12-27-2006, 09:48 PM
The only reason why Becker's said that is that Fed doesn't play RR-tournaments (:worship: !!!)... I guess he thinks he has a chance against all other players? :cuckoo:

Stupid guy. :crazy:

Via
12-27-2006, 09:57 PM
that's very diplomatic from a lower ranked player... let's see if he'll be the one to get trounced twice in his group :tape:

Castafiore
12-27-2006, 10:01 PM
The only reason why Becker's said that is that Fed doesn't play RR-tournaments (:worship: !!!)... I guess he thinks he has a chance against all other players? :cuckoo::
What?
How on earth do you go from what Becker said to this?

Sunset of Age
12-27-2006, 10:14 PM
What?
How on earth do you go from what Becker said to this?

Read the rest of the thread, I'd say. Especially Murray's comments.

(a) In short: RR benefits the real TOP players and, generally speaking, makes it more difficult for lesser ranked players to come through. A Fed or a Nadal won't let it happen to loose twice during the RR. They may have ONE off-day, but usually, not two of them.

(b) Fed has already announced he's boycotting the RR tournaments.

So, (a) + (b) -> Becker really thinks he has a chance against all other players to survive them twice. Otherwise he wouldn't be positive (or rather, not negative) about RR.

Castafiore
12-27-2006, 10:27 PM
I don't need to read Murray's opinion or this thread to assess Becker's viewpoint. He said that he hasn't really made up his made yet (but it seems as if you're making it up for him) but his first impression is positive.

Furthermore, about your idea that Becker thinks that he stands a chance against other players: 1) he shouldn't bother stepping on a court if he believes that he does not stand a chance and 2) reading the entire interview, Becker comes across as rather modest.

What Becker said was the following (rough translation):
I'm playing at the premiere in Adelaide and only then will I be able to give my opinion on it. I'm usually open to new things and I'm willing to try things out for myself. I'm sure that a few wrinkles will have to be ironed out in the beginning. but I believe that it's a good change and one that could possibly be appreciated by the public.

He's very cautious in his opinion so you're putting quite a few words into his mouth IMO.

Sunset of Age
12-27-2006, 10:38 PM
^^ I very well got that.
I should have added some 'sarcasm' emoticons, would've made things clearer, perhaps. And of course, Mr. Becker is fully entitled to make up his mind the way he wants.

To end this, I'd like to add that I can't believe he really thinks that playing the Adelaide tournament will help him make up his mind. Wait till he meets some real opponents somewhere else and gets his butt kicked twice...

Castafiore
12-27-2006, 10:41 PM
Sarcasm is one thing. Coming down on a player for things he hasn't said at all is quite another.
Besides, he shouldn't bother making up his own mind at all since MTF will make it up for him.

nobama
12-27-2006, 11:25 PM
Read the rest of the thread, I'd say. Especially Murray's comments.

(a) In short: RR benefits the real TOP players and, generally speaking, makes it more difficult for lesser ranked players to come through. A Fed or a Nadal won't let it happen to loose twice during the RR. They may have ONE off-day, but usually, not two of them.

(b) Fed has already announced he's boycotting the RR tournaments.

So, (a) + (b) -> Becker really thinks he has a chance against all other players to survive them twice. Otherwise he wouldn't be positive (or rather, not negative) about RR.You say Fed's boycotting the RR tournaments. Please tell me which event (that will be RR in 2007) Fed has played in the last 3 years. I know he's spoken out against RR, but I don't think he's boycotting any tournaments. The tournaments selected for RR just happen to be ones he doesn't normally play.

Sunset of Age
12-27-2006, 11:33 PM
You say Fed's boycotting the RR tournaments. Please tell me which event (that will be RR in 2007) Fed has played in the last 3 years. I know he's spoken out against RR, but I don't think he's boycotting any tournaments. The tournaments selected for RR just happen to be ones he doesn't normally play.

You're right here, I used the wrong word - I should just have said Fed is not planning to play any tournaments that apply the RR-format.
Scusi about that. :) I realize may have heated up the discussion more than I intended.

Truc
01-03-2007, 07:15 PM
Sébastien Grosjean admits he hasn't "weighted up the pros and the cons, yet" but his first reaction was "it seems to be a good idea for the tournaments' directors, the tv and the fans. Sébastien also thinks "it's a good thing for all the players because it gives them a second chance'.He seems to have changed his mind...
He was asked in an interview in L'Équipe why he didn't play in Adelaide (all the more since Bruno Clément is his coach now and Clément is playing in Adelaide) and he answered he didn't because he's kind of boycotting the RR system. I just posted it in his forum (the translation is not accurate, it's just to give the gist of what he says):
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4619863&postcount=6

Via
01-03-2007, 11:04 PM
thanks truc... he must be the first to carry out a 'boycott' as far as i know.

anyway seb isn't hitting form right away and might have gone down like the other seed named hrbaty, losing twice.

vincayou
01-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Gasquet complained about it I heard. He won the first set against Dancevic and already knew that he was qualified from there. He didn't find a reason to keep fighting (and lost the second set by the way).

He stated that he doesn't want to play a tournament in this format anymore this year.

Vialator
01-04-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes, his declarations :
Gasquet was not quite so happy, yesterday threatening not to play in a round robin tournament for the rest of the season while delivering a stinging critique of the ATP's experimental format. The Frenchman said he was aware that he needed to win only the first set of his final pool match to reach the quarters, and blamed that knowledge for a three-set struggle against Canadian Frank Dancevic.

"When I won the first set, I knew I was the qualifier for the quarter-finals so it wasn't easy for me to play the second set," Gasquet said. "I didn't like to play after winning the first set. I am not sure I will play a round robin (again) in the year. I did not like the second set."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tennis/guccione-is-winning-everything/2007/01/04/1167777217464.html?page=2

Puschkin
01-04-2007, 03:02 PM
He stated that he doesn't want to play a tournament in this format anymore this year.
:yeah: Stick with it.

ishiphonehome
01-04-2007, 03:18 PM
RR is so stupid. I know they want to commercalize it more. But if the players, like gasquet and other don't want to play it then what is the point. After all it is the players who are playing not us. Although I all for making tennis in the 21 centuary with hawk-eye. The RR is taking it too far and is changing tennis too much.

nobama
01-04-2007, 05:59 PM
Ritchie :yeah: Players need to keep the complaints coming. Hopefully fans will start complaining too. TD's certainly won't.

Deboogle!.
01-04-2007, 06:44 PM
excellent, thanks Richard! Now other players need to follow suit. and I think it might carry more weight that he actually gave it a shot, he played the tournament, and didn't like it.

Since this program was theoretically designed to keep top players (aka the players who attract fans and make the tournaments money) around longer, what we really need is for those same players to be the ones to not play those tournaments at all. Like if you have players like Andy and James say to a US tourney that they have played at forever and stuff say "nope, we don't support RR so we're not gonna play your tourney" - the TDs won't love it so much anymore.

Sunset of Age
01-04-2007, 07:54 PM
Since this program was theoretically designed to keep top players (aka the players who attract fans and make the tournaments money) around longer, what we really need is for those same players to be the ones to not play those tournaments at all. Like if you have players like Andy and James say to a US tourney that they have played at forever and stuff say "nope, we don't support RR so we're not gonna play your tourney" - the TDs won't love it so much anymore.

Yes, that would be the best way to get some sense into the ATP/TD's heads. I hope Richie is the first of a very long line of players to speak up after actually having attended a RR-tournament.

hablovah19
01-04-2007, 08:36 PM
Fabrice :worship:

Just like the NHL, tennis is experimenting with all these news rules. Not a good sign . . .

scoobs
01-04-2007, 09:01 PM
Of course the ATP is likely to bury its head in the sand about complaints that it favours the top players.

After all, only the top 2 of the 8 seeds actually made it through to the Quarters in Adelaide.

Kalliopeia
01-04-2007, 09:07 PM
Of course the ATP is likely to bury its head in the sand about complaints that it favours the top players.

After all, only the top 2 of the 8 seeds actually made it through to the Quarters in Adelaide.

But the great thing about that is that the only reason they put RR into practice was to get the top seeds through. So maybe the failure of that in Adelaide combined with players like Gasquet disliking the format and avoiding it will get rid of it once and for all. Please please please let that happen!

Via
01-04-2007, 09:23 PM
good decision but richard.... no tournament would allow you to advance to the quarters by playing one and a half match ;)

But the great thing about that is that the only reason they put RR into practice was to get the top seeds through. So maybe the failure of that in Adelaide combined with players like Gasquet disliking the format and avoiding it will get rid of it once and for all. Please please please let that happen!

it's never about the players liking or disliking it. it will depend on whether tournaments get more financial benefit from it. it's hard to tell with adelaide as they already started selling tickets at their regular pricing and schedule (and i suppose similar with other marketing and media arrangements) before they decided to use RR.

Kalliopeia
01-04-2007, 09:50 PM
it's never about the players liking or disliking it. it will depend on whether tournaments get more financial benefit from it. it's hard to tell with adelaide as they already started selling tickets at their regular pricing and schedule (and i suppose similar with other marketing and media arrangements) before they decided to use RR.

It will be about the players liking it or not if a lot of them opt not to play those tournaments. I don't know if they will but I can hope can't I? :)

Deboogle!.
01-04-2007, 11:47 PM
Yes, that would be the best way to get some sense into the ATP/TD's heads. I hope Richie is the first of a very long line of players to speak up after actually having attended a RR-tournament.Yes, we can only hope. I'm sure there are other ways that might make them abandon the idea, but if the very top players they are trying to make stick around are so incensed that they're refusing to play these tourneys, it would speak volumes. Unfortunately, accomplishing this would require some players to say a big FU to some tourneys that have been very good to them since before they were famous (such as giving them WCs when they were nobodies, etc.). I'm unfortunately not convinced that the players will want to do that in some cases.Of course the ATP is likely to bury its head in the sand about complaints that it favours the top players.

After all, only the top 2 of the 8 seeds actually made it through to the Quarters in Adelaide.I think we have to wait a little bit longer to see how it shakes out. The first tourneys of the season have a long history of having one-off winners and odd results. So I'm not sure that we can deduce a lot from just one tourney.

All I know is.... I'm a lifelong tennis fan and I have barely followed Adelaide simply b/c I can't understand the system. That is certainly not the way to attract new fans :shrug:

Action Jackson
01-05-2007, 02:11 AM
More players need to stand up and I hope Gasquet follows through on his statement about not playing RR events.

TenHound
01-05-2007, 02:54 AM
The rest of us have our role to play. To be sure we neither attend nor watch any RR event. Should espn/yr. local broadcaster show it, contact them & request that they not do so.

One of the major constituencies is local tournament directors who want to keep big names around. If people boycott the tournaments that will end their support for it.

Shrinking Violet
01-05-2007, 03:07 AM
Is there a list of players who have come out and voiced concerns about the RR?

I got - Federer, Gasquet, Grosjean and Murray. Anyone else so far? I'm sure I'm missing out a couple of the French guys.

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:33 AM
Is there a list of players who have come out and voiced concerns about the RR?

I got - Federer, Gasquet, Grosjean and Murray. Anyone else so far? I'm sure I'm missing out a couple of the French guys.

J. Johansson has spoken to that effect as well. If I'm not mistaken, Marat also spoke out against it (I think he speaks out against all the novelty changes).

Action Jackson
01-05-2007, 03:36 AM
J. Johansson has spoken to that effect as well. If I'm not mistaken, Marat also spoke out against it (I think he speaks out against all the novelty changes).

No, Marat is a RR bitch he loves it.

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:42 AM
No, Marat is a RR bitch he loves it.

Maybe I confused his dislike of Hawk Eye challenges then, or maybe that was someone else too.

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:42 AM
Here are some

“I thought it was an interesting idea in the first place. Now I'm not a big fan any more of it... Just keep the knockout system. That's so unique about tennis, one bad day, you're out.”
- Roger Federer AGAINST

“I totally agree with the change in the system to round robin… that favours the show, the players and the tournament. Everyone. I am thrilled.”
- Rafael Nadal FOR


“It can be strange, we are not used to it. It might be interesting, but I don’t think the whole calendar can be played using that format.” AMBIGUOUS
- David Nalbandian

“The tournament directors want to have the best players the whole week and it’s understandable.”
- Marat Safin AMBIGUOUS


“We didn’t have a say in all this. They only consulted the Nadals and Federers.”
- Nicholas Mahut AGAINST

“It seems to be a good idea for the tournament directors, the TV and the fans. It’s good for the players because it gives them a second chance.”
- Sebastien Grosjean FOR

“Only economic arguments are behind all this. Losing a match and winning the tournament at the end, is something I have trouble to accept.”
- Fabrice Santoro AGAINST

“I have played in the Masters, which is the only tournament right now using the league format, and it's good for the players. Even if you have an off-day you have the chance to win the title.”
- Carlos Moya FOR

“It never hurts to try it. We can try it. First of all, I think the main issue is how the fans respond to it. If it increases the interest in tennis, then I think we should go along with that. They are the ones paying our bills.”
- Dmitry Tursunov AMBIGUOUS

“I don’t like it, a win against a top ten player becomes less important. A player can beat Federer and not be able to qualify.”
- Edgardo Massa AGAINST

helen phillips
01-05-2007, 03:46 AM
Yes, we can only hope. I'm sure there are other ways that might make them abandon the idea, but if the very top players they are trying to make stick around are so incensed that they're refusing to play these tourneys, it would speak volumes. Unfortunately, accomplishing this would require some players to say a big FU to some tourneys that have been very good to them since before they were famous (such as giving them WCs when they were nobodies, etc.). I'm unfortunately not convinced that the players will want to do that in some cases.I think we have to wait a little bit longer to see how it shakes out. The first tourneys of the season have a long history of having one-off winners and odd results. So I'm not sure that we can deduce a lot from just one tourney.

All I know is.... I'm a lifelong tennis fan and I have barely followed Adelaide simply b/c I can't understand the system. That is certainly not the way to attract new fans :shrug:


On the one hand your a "lifelong" fan but on the other your certain this system isn't the way to attract new fans? Are you really the best person to be making that call? Candidly I think it's good the ATP is trying it (there it is - I said it) but I'm not so sure it will work out. Agree or disagree I certainly don't think it merits the chicken little responses posted here. If it doesn't effect you livelihood your not enitled to get as worked up as many of you appear to be. Chill, it's just a game (a fantastic one I grant you but still).

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:46 AM
Safin, FOR

(http://www.safinator.com/int_usopen1_06.html)

So to be able to sell tickets and to be able to be successful, the tournaments to have success and have a great finals, they need to have a Round Robin. Because the good players, they always qualify to the quarterfinals, semifinals, and to the finals basically.

So already Friday, Saturday, and Sunday they will have the good players playing for the championship. And Round Robin, I think it's a great thing. You play the same amount of matches as a normal tournament and you have a chance, even if Agassi is losing -- for example, if I'm losing the first round in the Round Robin, I still have a chance to qualify to the quarterfinals.

So I think it's great for the good players. When they're unlucky and lose to somebody, they still have a chance, you know. Also for the tournament directors I think it's great. It's much better to sell the tickets.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2007, 03:50 AM
“It seems to be a good idea for the tournament directors, the TV and the fans. It’s good for the players because it gives them a second chance.”
- Sebastien Grosjean FORBut didn't someone above say Seb had changed his mind and even though his coach would be in Adelaide with Clement, he wasn't going to play because he decided he didn't support RR? If he changed his mind completely without even playing an event with the system, that's pretty interesting.

Action Jackson
01-05-2007, 03:50 AM
Grosjean is against it as is Murray.

Djokovic and Hewitt are pro-RR.

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:53 AM
But didn't someone above say Seb had changed his mind and even though his coach would be in Adelaide with Clement, he wasn't going to play because he decided he didn't support RR? If he changed his mind completely without even playing an event with the system, that's pretty interesting.

Federer changed his mind about it as well, without playing it (excluding Shanghai's RR). I am pretty sure he was "for" it at least at some point, or rather not opposed to it.

I haven't read anything new about Seb's position on it. The for position was the last I knew.

Deboogle!.
01-05-2007, 03:54 AM
Federer changed his mind about it as well, without playing it (excluding Shanghai's RR). I am pretty sure he was "for" it at least at some point, or rather not opposed to it.

I haven't read anything new about Seb's position on it. The for position was the last I knew.Yeah, but if Seb actually changed his mind about playing a particular tournament because of it, it's even a stronger "against" position.

Well hopefully more will continue to speak out and they'll have no choice but to take notice :awww:

rexman
01-05-2007, 05:02 AM
So has anyone noticed that only one of the eight players who made it through the round robin actually lost a match and got through.

With the groupings being so small, it's extremely difficult to lose a match and still get through. Only Jojo got it, and that's probably because Serra had to retire.

If say, Del Potro gets hot and upsets Nadal one, but gets drilled by Olivier Rochus, does he really deserve to go through anyhow?

Neely
01-05-2007, 11:19 AM
So Gasquet blames the format because he himself was mentally already somewhere else and didn't have the desire to finish it off properly? Well, maybe next time there is a player who does not want to quit the match just after qualifying for the next round and who actually is eager to win every match. But at least he was honest in his statement. And yes I agree, with this attitude he better not plays a RR tournament again :lol:

Ryan
01-05-2007, 01:07 PM
One question: have players been asked why they are opposed to RR in regular events, but aren't opposed to it in Shanghai/end of year championships? I hate the new RR format, but I was just wondering if any player has had to justify playing Shanghai, and not wanting to play Adelaide et.al.

R.Federer
01-05-2007, 03:12 PM
One question: have players been asked why they are opposed to RR in regular events, but aren't opposed to it in Shanghai/end of year championships? I hate the new RR format, but I was just wondering if any player has had to justify playing Shanghai, and not wanting to play Adelaide et.al.

I haven't heard them talk about that, but it's clear that in Shanghai you are competing against people approximately as good as you (in usual times), just the top 8. So there is about even chances of getting through in a RR as in losing it.
In a regular event, you are playing against much much lower ranked players, so it's almost inevitable that even with one bad loss, the higher ranked guy will eventually find himself in the knockouts.

Truc
01-05-2007, 04:05 PM
All the Frenchies who played in Adelaide disliked the RR system, according to an article today in L'Équipe: Gasquet, Clément, here are the reactions of Serra and Simon after their match:

Serra: "So, did you enjoy the show? He didn't have anything to lose and as for me, I knew that and I was tense. I fully understand Gilles tried to win the match. It means 20 points for the ranking, 2 000 dollars, it isn't nothing. He did what he had to do, but with a 'relaxation' he wouldn't have had in a normal match."

Simon: "Of course I've thought of giving him the win. However, I know Florent for 5 years and I've never seen him play as badly as in the first set. This round robin system is rotten. I really hope the ATP understood they have to stop this."

Clément also was annoyed because Becker had no chance anymore to qualify after having lost the first set and didn't fight in the 2nd set (he lost 6/1). Arnaud's reaction: "That's not a tennis match. A tennis match, it's 2 opponents fighting and the winner makes it to the next round. This system is crap."

(The translations suck, but that's about what they say, I posted the original quotes in their respective forums.)

rofe
01-05-2007, 04:24 PM
Hahaha....I love this. Hopefully Mr. Disney will have his hands full soon with players dissenting all over the place.

All the Frenchies who played in Adelaide disliked the RR system, according to an article today in L'Équipe: Gasquet, Clément, here are the reactions of Serra and Simon after their match:

Serra: "So, did you enjoy the show? He didn't have anything to lose and as for me, I knew that and I was tense. I fully understand Gilles tried to win the match. It means 20 points for the ranking, 2 000 dollars, it isn't nothing. He did what he had to do, but with a 'relaxation' he wouldn't have had in a normal match."

Simon: "Of course I've thought of giving him the win. However, I know Florent for 5 years and I've never seen him play as badly as in the first set. This round robin system is rotten. I really hope the ATP understood they have to stop this."

Clément also was annoyed because Becker had no chance anymore to qualify after having lost the first set and didn't fight in the 2nd set (he lost 6/1). Arnaud's reaction: "That's not a tennis match. A tennis match, it's 2 opponents fighting and the winner makes it to the next round. This system is crap."

(The translations suck, but that's about what they say, I posted the original quotes in their respective forums.)

Deboogle!.
01-05-2007, 04:31 PM
So has anyone noticed that only one of the eight players who made it through the round robin actually lost a match and got through.

With the groupings being so small, it's extremely difficult to lose a match and still get through. Only Jojo got it, and that's probably because Serra had to retire.

If say, Del Potro gets hot and upsets Nadal one, but gets drilled by Olivier Rochus, does he really deserve to go through anyhow?For me that's not the point. The point is that Del Potro should get credit for not just beating Nadal but for kicking him out of the tournament completely. Sure, it happens all the time that a player pulls off a massive upset and gets his butt kicked in the next round, but that's what happens. What RR Does is make that great upset potentially 100% meaningless. and that's what's upsetting.

Sunset of Age
01-05-2007, 04:39 PM
What RR Does is make that great upset potentially 100% meaningless. and that's what's upsetting.

Exactly. That's what I meant when I said that the RR format will most likely be a desaster for all lesser-but-upcoming players.
Fortunately it looks like Adelaide is being quite a mess already.

nobama
01-05-2007, 05:48 PM
For me that's not the point. The point is that Del Potro should get credit for not just beating Nadal but for kicking him out of the tournament completely. Sure, it happens all the time that a player pulls off a massive upset and gets his butt kicked in the next round, but that's what happens. What RR Does is make that great upset potentially 100% meaningless. and that's what's upsetting.
And even if said player gets his butt kicked in the next round that win still should mean something and sometimes does in terms of building confidence.

I just cannot see fans (die hard or casual) embracing RR. For casual fans it will for sure be to complicated and most likely the best players won't participate in the RR events anyway.

Marine
01-05-2007, 06:11 PM
Can we count the players who are clearly FOR, the players who are clearly AGAINST and the players without opinion ?

Geniey2g
01-08-2007, 09:23 PM
Gasquet complained about it I heard. He won the first set against Dancevic and already knew that he was qualified from there. He didn't find a reason to keep fighting (and lost the second set by the way).

He stated that he doesn't want to play a tournament in this format anymore this year.
exactly!

RR is crap, man- I can't imagine why the ATP can't see this. Too much swings and roundabouts- it's not fair.

Sunset of Age
01-08-2007, 09:34 PM
Gasquet! :worship: :worship: :worship:

nobama
01-17-2007, 05:58 AM
Not really a ringing endorsement of de Villiers. :lol:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/17/sports/AS-SPT-TEN-Federer-the-Statesman.php

Asked to give an assessment of de Villiers, who could loosely be described as Federer's boss on the tour, the Swiss star chose his words carefully after saying he hardly knew former ATP chief Mark Miles.

"I think Etienne has had a very interesting year," said Federer. "He's really raised many questions, and I think it's going to be interesting to see what he does in the future.

"It's definitely raised more awareness from the players' side. We want to be more involved in the decision-making, as well. There are some things we're trying out, like Hawk-Eye ... we also have the round-robin."

This year, the tour is experimenting with round-robin formats at some tournaments, but Federer doesn't like the concept.

"I'm not a round-robin guy," says Federer. "I hope they're not going to be around in '08."

R.Federer
01-17-2007, 06:00 AM
Good for him. Call it like it is!

bluefork
01-17-2007, 06:00 AM
Not really a ringing endorsement of de Villiers. :lol:

I agree with him, but why does he care? It's not like he plays any of the RR events anyway.

Leo
01-17-2007, 06:16 AM
I agree with him, but why does he care? It's not like he plays any of the RR events anyway.

It doesn't matter. Having the #1 player denounce round robin is definitely a good thing, so let's all be happy!

I just wish he was harsher about it and made more of a statement.

Loremaster
01-17-2007, 06:17 AM
I hope Mr.Mickey Mouse will listen to Roger

nobama
01-17-2007, 06:21 AM
It doesn't matter. Having the #1 player denounce round robin is definitely a good thing, so let's all be happy!

I just wish he was harsher about it and made more of a statement.

That quote wasn't everything he said. In his press conference he did say most players are against it and they'll have to "wait and see" what the fans think about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyUVTtHl8cQ

nobama
01-17-2007, 11:43 AM
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/news/interviews/2007-01-17/200701171168977610921.html
Q. How would you assess Etienne de Villiers' first year in running the ATP? How badly did it need someone like him to come in and shake it up?

Well, I think it was good for a change. I think Mark Miles definitely did some good things. I didn't know him well enough, to be honest. He was there for a very long time. I guess eventually it's also time for change, especially when all the players are kind of like ‑‑ well, we've kind of seen him now, we've had enough of him. It's time for him to leave, as well. I think that moment was really maybe due to come. I think Etienne has had a very interesting year. He's really raised many questions. He's gotten some answers, and I think it's going to be interesting to see what he does in the future. It's definitely also raised more awareness from the players' side. We want to be more involved in decision making, as well. I think the group of guys we are right now, we also very much are interested in what's going to happen with the game in the future. I think we're at a very interesting stage right now. There are things we're trying out, like Hawk‑Eye. Some things are now pushed through all the way. We have also the round‑robin. I think we'll see how we go from there. I don't think the players like it that much. Fans, we'll see. From my end, I'm not a round‑robin guy. I'm not playing one of these events. I'm happy about that this year. I hope they're not going to be around in '08. But, look, I'm not the only guy playing on tour. There's other players, as well, who have to agree with those things. I think it's going to be interesting to see where the game goes from here really.

Ernham
01-17-2007, 11:54 AM
I swear that guy is such a natural-born diplomat.... until someone asks him something about nadal, which is when he morphs into Andrew "Dice" Clay.

Action Jackson
01-26-2007, 01:51 AM
"I am going to play a few of the RR events later, but we'll see how it goes. I am not sure they will keep it in 2008" - Stefan Koubek.

"Nadal can lose 1 match on clay, but definitely not 2 within a tournament. It's just for the big guys and tournament directors" - Andreas Seppi

Action Jackson
01-26-2007, 06:36 AM
All the Frenchies who played in Adelaide disliked the RR system, according to an article today in L'Équipe: Gasquet, Clément, here are the reactions of Serra and Simon after their match:

Serra: "So, did you enjoy the show? He didn't have anything to lose and as for me, I knew that and I was tense. I fully understand Gilles tried to win the match. It means 20 points for the ranking, 2 000 dollars, it isn't nothing. He did what he had to do, but with a 'relaxation' he wouldn't have had in a normal match."

Simon: "Of course I've thought of giving him the win. However, I know Florent for 5 years and I've never seen him play as badly as in the first set. This round robin system is rotten. I really hope the ATP understood they have to stop this."

Clément also was annoyed because Becker had no chance anymore to qualify after having lost the first set and didn't fight in the 2nd set (he lost 6/1). Arnaud's reaction: "That's not a tennis match. A tennis match, it's 2 opponents fighting and the winner makes it to the next round. This system is crap."

(The translations suck, but that's about what they say, I posted the original quotes in their respective forums.)

Thanks for the translations of what the French guys said, but there is definitely not a lot of love for the format among the players.

Neely
01-26-2007, 09:49 AM
Two weeks ago there was in interview in which Kiefer was asked about new things in tennis, the RR format and Sunday starts:

"This is very good for the spectators; if a players loses once, he still has a chance to advance. And why not start a tournament on Sunday instead of Monday?"

-----

but he hasn't played it himself yet and as we have seen now, your chances to advance if you lost a match, are relatively slim in reality.

Action Jackson
01-28-2007, 04:29 AM
We have also the round‑robin. I think we'll see how we go from there. I don't think the players like it that much. Fans, we'll see. From my end, I'm not a round‑robin guy. I'm not playing one of these events. I'm happy about that this year. I hope they're not going to be around in '08. But, look, I'm not the only guy playing on tour. There's other players, as well, who have to agree with those things. I think it's going to be interesting to see where the game goes from here really.

Well, Federer is the big cheese of the players and he needs to speak up, but there isn't a great love for the format among his peers, especially after the 1st event and the confusing nature of it, which didn't make it as easy to follow.

sondraj06
01-28-2007, 04:35 AM
I swear that guy is such a natural-born diplomat.... until someone asks him something about nadal, which is when he morphs into Andrew "Dice" Clay.

O god, it happens, every now and again, hilarious. thanx for making me laugh:angel:

Merton
01-28-2007, 04:38 AM
Well, Federer is the big cheese of the players and he needs to speak up, but there isn't a great love for the format among his peers, especially after the 1st event and the confusing nature of it, which didn't make it as easy to follow.

It is obvious now that the ATP did not give any serious attention on how to implement the RR format. One would think that competent professionals think of these minor details before they make big announcements.

Action Jackson
01-28-2007, 04:41 AM
It is obvious now that the ATP did not give any serious attention on how to implement the RR format. One would think that competent professionals think of these minor details before they make big announcements.

The thing is if they are going to do this format, then shouldn't they have made it easy to follow or was that a deliberate strategy to make it confusing.

Yes, I get how it works, but even the points distribution of qualifying into the elimination round wasn't explained clearly and this is how they want to attract the casual or bandwagon fan.

Fedexex
01-28-2007, 09:26 AM
i dont like it..:mad:

Kalliopeia
01-28-2007, 12:27 PM
Well that's interesting. But I mean, of course it's going to lead to match fixing. Just a bad idea for so many different reasons.

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 04:21 AM
Great work Xavi, winning the title without winning all matches.

From Malisse

"It's just I knew I had to win one set and I won the first set and there was no motivation anymore," said Malisse.

"It's different tennis. It's a different mentality. You win a set and what are you playing for? There's nothing to it any more."

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 04:46 AM
That's not all he said....
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/02/02/a3b_tennis_0202.html

Third-seeded Xavier Malisse also made the quarterfinals, but wasn't in as good of a mood for a different reason. After losing his final group match Thursday, Malisse slumped off the court and into the next round thanks to the tournament's quirky round-robin format.

Although Malisse was the first to utilize the round-robin format's tie-breaker to stay alive, he isn't a fan of the format that put him in the round of eight.

"I don't like the approach," Malisse said. "It's different tennis and a different mentality. ... There's no motivation to win and that's the biggest problem"

Malisse knew what he had to do to advance and was aware he had won his group before his match against Rainer Schuettler was over. Schuettler won 6-7 (4), 7-6 (1), 6-3 to give all three players identical 1-1 records in round-robin play. The tiebreaker is percentage of sets won, and after winning the first set, Malisse already had an insurmountable lead in that category.

But Malisse and Schuettler played on, although during the match, Malisse complained - loud enough for spectators to hear - that he didn't see the purpose of continuing since he was already in the quarterfinals.

"I don't like being on the court not wanting to win," Malisse said. "After I won the first set, we should have just shaken hands."

Malisse said the format, which had avoided any controversy in the seven other groups here, is confusing to fans and players.

"People were telling me 'Good luck next week.'... It's just very confusing," said Malisse, who will face Guillermo Garcia-Lopez at noon.

Tournament director Mark Baron said he hasn't formed an opinion on the format.

"If I find the round-robin isn't working we won't have it," he said. "I haven't heard anyone speaking negatively about it. ... It's still up in the air and this is a test."

Schuettler also had trouble coping with the new format after his upset of the third seed sent him home.

"It's a difficult situation," Schuettler said. "I want to play a lot of matches. For me, it's good just to play. ... He knew he had to win one set, so then it got mentally tough for him."

zicofirol
02-06-2007, 04:46 AM
Great work Xavi, winning the title without winning all matches.

From Malisse

"It's just I knew I had to win one set and I won the first set and there was no motivation anymore," said Malisse.

"It's different tennis. It's a different mentality. You win a set and what are you playing for? There's nothing to it any more."

yeah, how lame was that, and maybe shuettler won a match he wouldnt of won under different circumstances.

I think players should advance depending on +/- games differential not sets, with sets you have the possibility of someone tanking a match after he gets the first set.

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 04:47 AM
And of course, Spadea would support it :rolleyes:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2007/01/30/w3c_delray_0130.html

Spadea has been to at least the semifinals in each of the past three seasons here including an appearance in the 2004 final. If he makes a charge to the final this year, it will be out of round-robin play. Spadea said he supports the formant, which guarantees seeded players of at least two matches.

"It's a positive experimentation," he said. "It's great the ATP is striving for positive change. We want the fans and those who enjoy tennis to enjoy it more."

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 04:49 AM
Well we know Malisse isn't in favour of it and thanks for expanding Deb.

None of the Brazilian players like Ghem, Alves, Silva support the RR format either, but most don't care about them sadly, cause they are lower ranked players.

I have heard some of the coaches view on it and it's mixed to say the least.

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 04:53 AM
I think that it's good that a player recognized - and said publicly - that fans are confused. Because that is the kind of thing that will worry TDs and might go towards killing this off. Well, we can hope.

artlinkletter
02-06-2007, 04:56 AM
"If I find the round-robin isn't working we won't have it," he said. "I haven't heard anyone speaking negatively about it. ... It's still up in the air and this is a test."
:tape: Ahh..yeah.:rolleyes:

Action Jackson
02-20-2007, 04:46 PM
Zabaleta

"I don't like it at all!"

kapranos
02-20-2007, 05:03 PM
RR is just a temporary toy. Just like 75% of ATP tournaments are toys, Mickey Mouse exhibitions so talentless hack ranked between 40 and 150 can make a living and be ready for Grand Slams.

Either way I don't care. Very few people care except tennis nerds posting all day on messageboards. If it can make some people happy, it will be gone within the next 2 or 3 years.

GlennMirnyi
02-20-2007, 05:30 PM
Blah blah blah "boycott Dubai". :retard:

Hendu
02-20-2007, 05:41 PM
Horna likes the 24 player RR. (interview, on tv)

Etlis thinks RR brings nothing good. (interview, on tv)

Zabaleta doesn't like RR. And thinks next year it will no longer exist. (this can be read at the Official site of Copa Telmex :) )

Action Jackson
02-20-2007, 05:44 PM
Stefanki said I am old school guy and I can't stand RR, let the best man win and if you lose you are out.

Fromberg, it will only really benefit the bigger players and it's not something I am in favour of.

zicofirol
02-20-2007, 06:01 PM
cañas coach just said on a tv interview that he doesnt like it, not sure if that means cañas doesn't like it either...

Hendu
02-20-2007, 08:56 PM
cañas coach just said on a tv interview that he doesnt like it, not sure if that means cañas doesn't like it either...

yes, thats Etlis.


Calleri also said he doesn't like RR. And he thinks the players won't approve it.

Action Jackson
02-21-2007, 07:37 AM
Henman

“I have taken a wild card into the Las Vegas tournament, which should provide excellent preparation for the year’s first Masters Series tournaments in Indian Wells and Miami. Not only is it on the same surface, but the opening rounds are played in a round-robin format, so I am guaranteed at least two matches. I admit I am not an advocate of staging tournaments in this way, but in this instance it suits me perfectly.”

Hendu
02-21-2007, 03:16 PM
Lucho Horna:

"I like the Round Robin system. I think tennis needs a change. I don't think it will change the mistyc of the game, I don't see it from that point of view, the system has to be found. Perhaps its a little confusing, but I think the ATP is looking for tennis to be more popular, which is what we all want.
The players can't put ourselves in the position of wanting to be more popular, and not looking for changes. Maybe it is complicated for the fans who have to accept it and understand it.
You feel the same pressure, it doesn't change the mentality. It is a matter of getting used to it. The tv and the fans will define this."

http://www.copatelmex.com/novedad.php?id=43

Galathea
02-21-2007, 05:31 PM
Well now Calleri and Chucho simply left the tournament (with the official explanations for the ATP by the doctors of course) because they didn't have chances. Casually after losing the first set Acasuso left the match :rolleyes: when he didn't have a chance.
This was confirmed not only by a phone call I got before the match started saying that Chucho and Calleri didn't want to play after losing their matches, but also the tv.

Hendu
02-21-2007, 06:20 PM
Chela is against Round Robin.

I would be surprised if there is RR in Buenos Aires next year. Jaite will not make the mistake twice.

Kalliopeia
02-21-2007, 10:52 PM
Lucho Horna:

"I like the Round Robin system. I think tennis needs a change. I don't think it will change the mistyc of the game, I don't see it from that point of view, the system has to be found. Perhaps its a little confusing, but I think the ATP is looking for tennis to be more popular, which is what we all want.
The players can't put ourselves in the position of wanting to be more popular, and not looking for changes. Maybe it is complicated for the fans who have to accept it and understand it.

More confusing will never equal more popular, why doesn't he get that?

Kalliopeia
02-21-2007, 10:53 PM
Well now Calleri and Chucho simply left the tournament (with the official explanations for the ATP by the doctors of course) because they didn't have chances. Casually after losing the first set Acasuso left the match :rolleyes: when he didn't have a chance.
This was confirmed not only by a phone call I got before the match started saying that Chucho and Calleri didn't want to play after losing their matches, but also the tv.

Interesting! What was the official excuse?

Galathea
02-21-2007, 11:07 PM
Interesting! What was the official excuse?

The oficial "injury" For Acasuso something in his elbow that he felt seving (the rival, a good friend of Chucho, that played a lot with him trying to defend him on an interview said Chucho played very deep and strong like always :rolleyes: ) For Calleri was again his back, not the old injury but a new one. The problem were the comments from the tv and some press after both players losing their matches and how they didn't have any motivation to play again, even when they had chances.

Action Jackson
02-21-2007, 11:09 PM
Interesting! What was the official excuse?

Calleri withdrew before the match and Chucho retired after the 1st set. Calleri actually has back problems and has had them for a while and Chucho had an elbow problem.

Action Jackson
02-21-2007, 11:11 PM
Lucho Horna:

"I like the Round Robin system. I think tennis needs a change. I don't think it will change the mistyc of the game, I don't see it from that point of view, the system has to be found. Perhaps its a little confusing, but I think the ATP is looking for tennis to be more popular, which is what we all want.
The players can't put ourselves in the position of wanting to be more popular, and not looking for changes. Maybe it is complicated for the fans who have to accept it and understand it.
You feel the same pressure, it doesn't change the mentality. It is a matter of getting used to it. The tv and the fans will define this."

http://www.copatelmex.com/novedad.php?id=43

Thanks for the full comments about Lucho and he has gone for the filthy lucre aspect and well he won a RR event, so he would like it. Then again Malisse won one and said the format was crap.