After 3 of 12 - how is Round Robin for you? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

After 3 of 12 - how is Round Robin for you?

scoobs
02-05-2007, 03:53 PM
We had Adelaide, using 32RR-H, as did Delray Beach, and Viña Del Mar used 24RR.

3 tournaments into the "grand experiment", what do people make of it so far?

Personally, I don't much like it, but I'm less irritated by it than I thought I would be. The inconsistencies bug me and the obvious potential for players to tank when they've done enough to qualify (or "lose motivation" as we must put it). It seems like a needlessly complicated way to cull 24 players from a 32 man draw, in the case of 32RR-H, and an only slightly easier way to cull 16 players from a 24RR draw.

Having said all that, I think I can put up with it, if it ends up sticking around permanently at some tournaments. It seems to make very little difference in the grand scheme of things, so far - the players who go through to the QFs are, generally speaking, the players who you'd expect to had they played a traditional knock-out draw. Seeds who haven't progressed have usually done so losing both RR matches, so have failed to take advantage of the extra chance to hang around. Most groups have been decided by 2 wins, rather than 1 win for all 3 and going to set % and h2h.

So if it ends up here to stay, I can live with it, even if it leaves a bit of nasty taste in my mouth at times.

I still can't see how this is supposed to help the casual fan, though. It's more confusing and, okay, the stars are guaranted two matches, but I've really yet to see a case where fans would have lost out if it had been traditional knock-out format.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 03:55 PM
Still sucks.

scarecrows
02-05-2007, 03:56 PM
it's even worse than I thought it could be

Deboogle!.
02-05-2007, 03:57 PM
It sucks. I don't feel like bothering to take the time to work out how the MDE shit works. To me that is the worst of the formats of all - Vina wasn't as bad with the straight 3 groups of 8, but I don't like that the draw size is smaller and 8 fewer guys get the chance to pick up the first round money and stuff (which many of them badly need).

I also desperately dislike the "dead matches" idea and the fact that malisse could win the tournament while lose a match is just wrong for me. It's just not how it is supposed to be.

Your last little bit is spot on - if anything, the confusion of it all can only be detrimental to attracting new people to the sport, and the problem is that it's also alienating the die-hard fans like us.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Malisse proved RR was a joke and was very clear about it. That's why his win at Delray is even better.

ChinoRios4Ever
02-05-2007, 04:00 PM
sucks all the way....

lots of tanks when you lose the 1st match easily in straight sets... and when a player need only 1 set to advance to the next round (see Malisse vs Schuettler in Delray Beach)

scoobs
02-05-2007, 04:00 PM
Are there any transcripts to what Malisse said?

savesthedizzle
02-05-2007, 04:02 PM
I still feel as strongly about it as ever. Malisse won the title after losing a match. That's just wrong. That Schuettler match didn't matter, and it should matter. Every match should matter.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 04:02 PM
Are there any transcripts to what Malisse said?

"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."

scoobs
02-05-2007, 04:04 PM
"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."

Where's that quote sourced from?

adee-gee
02-05-2007, 04:06 PM
I still feel as strongly about it as ever. Malisse won the title after losing a match. That's just wrong. That Schuettler match didn't matter, and it should matter. Every match should matter.
I'm kind of impartial on the subject of RR, but what I would say is that in many sports, people/teams can lose matches and still go on to win a tournament/cup/whatever.

keqtqiadv
02-05-2007, 04:08 PM
many sports :p it's tennis.

RR :retard:

yakuzaninja
02-05-2007, 04:10 PM
A bag of s h y t e.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 04:11 PM
Where's that quote sourced from?

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070202/ca_pr_on_te/ten_delray_beach

Deboogle!.
02-05-2007, 04:16 PM
So Mr Disney can say that fans are rewarded by seeing their favourite players later in the weekBut didn't Adelaide have a lot of upsets and almost no seeds made it through? So I don't think he can conclusively say that yet. And the respective fields are incomparable. If Delray Beach had been regular format, I'm sure the same thing would have happened because most of the seeds were so far better than most of the rest of the field.
I never liked it, and I hope it will die a slow deathI hope it dies a fast one :p

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 04:18 PM
Adelaide had only 2 seeds through.

Russian elephant
02-05-2007, 04:23 PM
bad system for sure

Bobby
02-05-2007, 04:31 PM
Round Robin is very very bad. As mentioned here before, it's wrong that the eventual winner can lose a match at the early stages. Also, the round robin is quite confusing to be honest. I don't think that the ATP can attract more spectators by making the draw more difficult to understand. I bet not all the spectators at the Malisse-Schuettler match knew that all Malisse needed was one set.

Finally, it's bad for the gamblers. It's not certain that there will be more tanking, but it's a big possibility.

Well, all this has been said before. My answer is that I don't like round robin.

ChinoRios4Ever
02-05-2007, 04:31 PM
Viña had 6 of 8 seeds in QF :p

ChinoRios4Ever
02-05-2007, 04:34 PM
RR: Gamblers' Killa :p

shotgun
02-05-2007, 04:35 PM
The 32 RR system is a complete disgrace to tennis. The MDE round is ridiculous, with players having to win up to six matches (as much as in a TMS event) to win a MM event, not to mention the ones that have to get through the qualifying.

The 24 RR system used in Vina isn't that bad, but still sucks compared to the traditional elimination system, because of the reasons already exposed - dead matches, players tanking, lack of excitement, etc. Only good thing I see about this system is that it gives journeymen and out-of-form players the opportunity to play two matches in a row in an ATP tournament and get some rythm. On the other hand, wouldn't it be better and more competitive if eight more players got the opportunity to play the main draw? Of course.

scoobs
02-05-2007, 04:43 PM
I've done some analysis (honestly, the things I do for you):

In Adelaide 1 / 8 groups was not decided by a player winning 2 matches
In Delray Beach 1 / 8 groups was not decided by a player winning 2 matches
In Viña del Mar 0 / 8 groups were not decided by a player winning 2 matches

So while this 1/2 dead rubber is a problem, so far it's a very minor one.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 04:45 PM
scoobs, are you working for the ATP?

scoobs
02-05-2007, 04:51 PM
scoobs, are you working for the ATP?

:haha:

I guess I'm trying to look on the bright side :)

Trouble is, the bright side is still pretty dark.

Action Jackson
02-05-2007, 04:52 PM
:haha:

I guess I'm trying to look on the bright side :)

Trouble is, the bright side is still pretty dark.

The bright side is when it gets eliminated in 2008.

superhoops
02-05-2007, 04:53 PM
Will always be shite.

henkon2
02-05-2007, 05:04 PM
It Sucks!

sondraj06
02-05-2007, 05:19 PM
I'm so confused, Somebody help. So not every players does the rr format. I thought it was just a way to eliminate players, but through multiple matches. like i play 3 matches win two and i'm trhough to the next round. until the final. and how many rounds are in this, to get to the final. i'm lost. And do you play more matches in the rr then you would the regular way.

jazar
02-05-2007, 05:41 PM
it just confuses. it sucks. it will ruin Queen's

Jaap
02-05-2007, 06:07 PM
RR: Gamblers' Killa :p

Not me, I won a lot on some of the RR matches at Delray. ;)

Merton
02-05-2007, 06:40 PM
It is even worse than my prior expectation, and that says a lot. I didn't anticipate how badly the ATP would deal with implementing the system. I hope Malisse's win gets some publicity and the format dies in 2008. The good news is that so far it doesn't seem to be a spectacular success for tournament directors relative to the knock out format and RR cannot survive without the support of tournament directors.

Voo de Mar
02-05-2007, 07:25 PM
1) Is good in situation like was in Vina del Mar with Gaudio. When he withdrew none player hadn't got a walkover.
2) Is bad in Malisse's case in DB. He had lost his motivation when he won the first set of match against such a poor player (nowdays) like Schuettler is. He tanked and then he won the whole tournament.

Foosimoo
02-05-2007, 07:45 PM
RR is terrible.

uglyamerican
02-05-2007, 07:52 PM
Personally, I don't much like it, but I'm less irritated by it than I thought I would be.

So if it ends up here to stay, I can live with it, even if it leaves a bit of nasty taste in my mouth at times.


I feel the same. I might be more inclined to travel to Indianapolis, but not much.

*Ljubica*
02-05-2007, 08:33 PM
Still totally hate it! The draws and formats are so difficult to understand, and it is so weighted in favour of the "top" players, that even when you do get someone coming through the RR stages like del Potro in Adelaide, they take half his damned points away :rolleyes:

Rosa Luxembourg
02-05-2007, 08:34 PM
H-a-t-e It.

Via
02-05-2007, 08:49 PM
don't know about the other two but i don't think adelaide got any more publicity or made any more money because of RR. but it was obviously more work for organisers. so i wouldn't think anyone was impressed.

dorkino
02-05-2007, 09:54 PM
So far, a means by which only some players can go on with their laziness aaaaand still win.

DrJules
02-05-2007, 10:23 PM
Round Robin is very very bad. As mentioned here before, it's wrong that the eventual winner can lose a match at the early stages. Also, the round robin is quite confusing to be honest. I don't think that the ATP can attract more spectators by making the draw more difficult to understand. I bet not all the spectators at the Malisse-Schuettler match knew that all Malisse needed was one set.

Finally, it's bad for the gamblers. It's not certain that there will be more tanking, but it's a big possibility.

Well, all this has been said before. My answer is that I don't like round robin.

Interesting view, but the year end masters has often been won by players who lost a match e.g. most recently Nalbandian in 2005. However, the event is highly rated and often considered the 5th biggest of the year.

mangoes
02-05-2007, 10:25 PM
I don't like it..........I was more open to giving this idea a chance, however, I am now completely against it. I don't even care to take the time to read the draws. There is only one word to describe the Round Robin format - CONFUSING. Figuring out the progression of a tournament should not require so much energy.

DrJules
02-05-2007, 10:29 PM
It sucks. I don't feel like bothering to take the time to work out how the MDE shit works. To me that is the worst of the formats of all - Vina wasn't as bad with the straight 3 groups of 8, but I don't like that the draw size is smaller and 8 fewer guys get the chance to pick up the first round money and stuff (which many of them badly need).

I also desperately dislike the "dead matches" idea and the fact that malisse could win the tournament while lose a match is just wrong for me. It's just not how it is supposed to be.

Your last little bit is spot on - if anything, the confusion of it all can only be detrimental to attracting new people to the sport, and the problem is that it's also alienating the die-hard fans like us.

1) Is good in situation like was in Vina del Mar with Gaudio. When he withdrew none player hadn't got a walkover.
2) Is bad in Malisse's case in DB. He had lost his motivation when he won the first set of match against such a poor player (nowdays) like Schuettler is. He tanked and then he won the whole tournament.

I don't like it..........I was more open to giving this idea a chance, however, I am now completely against it. I don't even care to take the time to read the draws. There is only one word to describe the Round Robin format - CONFUSING. Figuring out the progression of a tournament should not require so much energy.

Do I assume that you are also not keen on the year end masters format; players can lose a match and win, some matches are dead and it is difficult to determine who will progress

Bloodletting
02-05-2007, 11:12 PM
we all agree it sucks, trouble is that some players who are either in desperate need of competition (eg. Guga) or are ranked below 100 or 120 will support this

Hugh Jaas
02-05-2007, 11:17 PM
the round robin format is absolutely awful.

If Mr Disney wants seeded players to remain in the tournament for more than 1 match I would advise him to do 2 things.

1. Offer more prize money at ATP events for the finalists!$35,500 isn't much for a losing finalist of ATP event, footballers get paid more than that for sitting on the bench injured. This will offer more motivation for the top players like Nikolay davydenko (Who don't benefit for huge sponsor deals) and stop players making lame excuses to pull out of tournaments. one example being Andy Murray, he pulled out of Zagreb last week because of a blister on his foot...which leads to the next question


2. Cut down the events. Why are there so many filler tournaments?Is that what the challenger circuit is for? 3 ATP events a week after The AO is a bit too much. Example being fernando Gonzalez who was clearly exhausted playing 2 days after the AO final at Vina del Mar.

Less events, more prize money would offer a better competition for the spectators but i think mr Disney is more interested with HIS bank balance and having players enter 5983 events a year and fining them $10,000 if they complain...

Corey Feldman
02-05-2007, 11:18 PM
rubbish..
i dont even follow the tournaments until the QF's.

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 12:16 AM
Interesting view, but the year end masters has often been won by players who lost a match e.g. most recently Nalbandian in 2005. However, the event is highly rated and often considered the 5th biggest of the year.

So Delray, Viña, Adelaide were 8 men fields then?

Johnny Groove
02-06-2007, 12:24 AM
the only reason that the RR works at TMC is because it is the BEST players, and its only 8 players. The tanking (usually :o ) does not occur, as well as dead rubbers. Even the deads are entertaining, as the players are playing for 100 points per win, and lots of cash.

MM events? not so much :p

Jlee
02-06-2007, 12:26 AM
:ras: I hate it...

ASP0315
02-06-2007, 01:32 AM
RR sucks. :ras:
But good for the gamblers like dylan,belco,happy,jaap etc. :lol:

32 RR format is a complete joke.
24 RR format is not a bad one compared to 32 but still needs be modified.

I hope RR ends before the 13 tourney.

nobama
02-06-2007, 01:43 AM
The bright side is when it gets eliminated in 2008.
Does anyone have a list of all the players that have spoken out against it? I'd be curious to know what the ratio is for vs against. I know Fed said he hoped the format was gone in 2008 but since he doesn't play any RR events he probably won't be bothered to actively push to get rid of it. Then you have ATP suck-ups like Blake and Ljubicic who've semi endorsed it. :o

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 01:55 AM
don't know about the other two but i don't think adelaide got any more publicity or made any more money because of RR. but it was obviously more work for organisers. so i wouldn't think anyone was impressed.well, while I can't stand RR, I don't think anything being more work for the organizers is relevant. Promoting doubles better is also more work for the organizers and I support that. The problem is that it's more work for the fans. The organizers are mostly the reason why RR was implemented in the first place, so I have no sympathy for their workload. If it didn't make the tourneys any more money, that might matter to them, but they're also probably not gonna give up on it after just once. What we can hope is that the ATP as a whole will look at all the RR tourneys and see that it's not working. *prays*Do I assume that you are also not keen on the year end masters format; players can lose a match and win, some matches are dead and it is difficult to determine who will progressCompletely different circumstances and situation.
Does anyone have a list of all the players that have spoken out against it? I'd be curious to know what the ratio is for vs against. I know Fed said he hoped the format was gone in 2008 but since he doesn't play any RR events he probably won't be bothered to actively push to get rid of it. Then you have ATP suck-ups like Blake and Ljubicic who've semi endorsed it. :oThere's a thread somewhere here in GM about players' reactions where most of this stuff is listed. someone should bump it and add what Malisse has said. Pretty sure it's largely against it.

Don't forget Blake and Ljubicic are on the players' council, maybe they aren't in quite the same situation as everyone else. Plus I wouldn't say what James said was in favor. He said he was not opposed to experimenting (can't fault that), and that he would go with what the fans think (can't fault that either).

PamV
02-06-2007, 02:11 AM
I don't like it. It's too hard to understand the draw with some 32 players in a RR format. It's different with the TMC because there are only 4 players in two groups. That's easy to understand and makes sense. It allows them to stretch out the play of 8 top players over two weeks.

Voo de Mar
02-06-2007, 04:21 AM
Do I assume that you are also not keen on the year end masters format; players can lose a match and win, some matches are dead and it is difficult to determine who will progress

In Masters, a champion can lose even two matches (last year Nalbandian could be the first; this case was in 1995 doubles-Masters) :D I'm not against year end masters format but in my view better solution was in years 1982-1985 when was play-off format and "12 draw". But that format was also not ideal 'cause you could win only 3 matches before you got the title. In Masters should start 16 men (because rate is very equal) at play-off format like was in Compaq Grand Slam in years 1990-1997.
I'm a little surprise for a total critique of most MTF users. This format is trying in only 13 of 65 events and most of these events are Mickey-Mouse. If RR sucks will be expelled in 2008. This is clear for me. A novel solutions are good and bad. I'm sure in 1971 many people was disagree about the tie-breaks but who wants today watching matches like 7-9, 16-14, 10-8 in the 1st round of petty events? I think keeping distance is good, this is only funny tennis :devil:

Hugh Jaas
02-06-2007, 04:24 AM
the round robin format is absolutely awful.

If Mr Disney wants seeded players to remain in the tournament for more than 1 match I would advise him to do 2 things.

1. Offer more prize money at ATP events for the finalists!$35,500 isn't much for a losing finalist of ATP event $500,000 sounds about right, footballers get paid more than that for sitting on the bench injured. This will offer more motivation for the top players like Nikolay davydenko (Who don't benefit for huge sponsor deals) and stop players making lame excuses to pull out of tournaments. one example being Andy Murray, he pulled out of Zagreb last week because of a blister on his foot...which leads to the next question


2. Cut down the events. Why are there so many filler tournaments?Is that what the challenger circuit is for? 3 ATP events a week after The AO is a bit too much. Example being fernando Gonzalez who was clearly exhausted playing 2 days after the AO final at Vina del Mar.

Less events, more prize money would offer a better competition for the spectators but i think mr Disney is more interested with HIS bank balance and having players enter 5983 events a year and fining them $10,000 if they complain...

Via
02-06-2007, 04:24 AM
well, while I can't stand RR, I don't think anything being more work for the organizers is relevant. Promoting doubles better is also more work for the organizers and I support that. The problem is that it's more work for the fans. The organizers are mostly the reason why RR was implemented in the first place, so I have no sympathy for their workload. If it didn't make the tourneys any more money, that might matter to them, but they're also probably not gonna give up on it after just once. What we can hope is that the ATP as a whole will look at all the RR tourneys and see that it's not working. *prays*

i'm speaking from the tournament's point of view :p

because i've given up that our views here (majority MTF), or the opinions of many players, will make any difference. the only reason if RR won't survive, will be that it doesn't do the tournaments any good.

so, from that point of view, if they have to do a lot more work for hardly any gain, RR's chance of survival will be slim. workload means costs, don't forget.

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 04:26 AM
I'm a little surprise for a total critique of most MTF users. This format is trying in only 13 of 65 events and most of these events are Mickey-Mouse. If RR sucks will be expelled in 2008. This is clear for me. A novel solutions are good and bad. I'm sure in 1971 many people was disagree about the tie-breaks but who want today watching matches like 7-9, 16-14, 10-8 in the 1st round of petty events? I think keeping distance is good, this is only funny tennis :devil:

Not at all, for all the petty arguments and fanboy/girl attitudes, most people care about the sport to a degree and they didn't become fans cause some clown like Mr. Disney and corporate fuckwits said lets make tournaments RR to gain more interest.

Simple, there is a reason why football is the most popular sport around the world, they don't have massive amounts of rule changes for the sake of doing things. This has been discussed to death about good rule innovations that have improved their respective sports, this isn't one of them.

Tiebreaks made sense at the time and do now except the 5th set at the US Open.

Hugh Jaas
02-06-2007, 04:29 AM
Not at all, for all the petty arguments and fanboy/girl attitudes, most people care about the sport to a degree and they didn't become fans cause some clown like Mr. Disney and corporate fuckwits said lets make tournaments RR to gain more interest.

Simple, there is a reason why football is the most popular sport around the world, they don't have massive amounts of rule changes for the sake of doing things. This has been discussed to death about good rule innovations that have improved their respective sports, this isn't one of them.

Tiebreaks made sense at the time and do now except the 5th set at the US Open.

and they get paid more. $48,000 for a tournament champion? Mr Disney spends more on mickey mouse pajamas.

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 04:31 AM
and they get paid more. $48,000 for a tournament champion? Mr Disney spends more on mickey mouse pajamas.

:worship:

Voo de Mar
02-06-2007, 04:42 AM
Not at all, for all the petty arguments and fanboy/girl attitudes, most people care about the sport to a degree and they didn't become fans cause some clown like Mr. Disney and corporate fuckwits said lets make tournaments RR to gain more interest.


One thing is sure for me - you never satisfied all the people. Maybe this is procedure for teenagers fanboys/girls... I've watched tennis carefully since 1990 so for me these innovations aren't exciting but I always try to understand all the points of view.
BTW: football is great, my second favourite sport beside tennis, but "throw-in" sucks in my opinion and destroying this game.

Action Jackson
02-06-2007, 04:45 AM
One thing is sure for me - you never satisfied all the people. Maybe this is procedure for teenagers fanboys/girls... I've watched tennis carefully since 1990 so for me these innovations aren't exciting but I always try to understand all the points of view.
BTW: football is great, my second favourite sport beside tennis, but "throw-in" sucks in my opinion and destroying this game.

They have had the throw in for years. They tried the kick in at one of the championships and realised it was crap and they got rid of it, just like what should happen to RR.

I watched tennis before that and yes that included wooden racquets. I didn't need some gimmick to get me interested in the game and if someone does, then they will move onto the next fad.

zicofirol
02-06-2007, 04:51 AM
I dont like it, the only likeable aspect is players who get tough first round matches get a chance to redeem themselves, like falla and capdeville, so in a sense it might help lowered ranked players get some points but I still think its sucks.

Bram
02-06-2007, 10:38 AM
It's horrible. I hate it, it's just total chaos in the earlier RR rounds :rolleyes:

nobama
02-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Don't forget Blake and Ljubicic are on the players' council, maybe they aren't in quite the same situation as everyone else. Plus I wouldn't say what James said was in favor. He said he was not opposed to experimenting (can't fault that), and that he would go with what the fans think (can't fault that either).I just hope the fans and TDs give it a massive thumbs down. Because that's the only way it will be scrapped.

Frooty_Bazooty
02-06-2007, 11:58 AM
I like it

Ivanatis
02-06-2007, 12:00 PM
It's horrible. I hate it, it's just total chaos in the earlier RR rounds :rolleyes:

second this

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 02:40 PM
I just hope the fans and TDs give it a massive thumbs down. Because that's the only way it will be scrapped.I think the best hope might be if players refuse to play those tournaments. You have a guy like Malisse, he is well-loved in Delray, has won the title 2 of the past 3 years, everyone who goes to that tournament likes him, etc. He is a big draw card for the tournament. What if Malisse was ballsy enough to say "i love this tournament but I hate round robin so I won't play here until the format is normal again"

If Malisse, Blake, and Haas did that, my guess it would be enough for Delray to scrap it. The whole point of RR is so that the "stars" are around for at least 2 matches. Well if the "stars" are gutsy enough to refuse to play at all.... bingo.

uglyamerican
02-06-2007, 02:44 PM
I think the best hope might be if players refuse to play those tournaments. You have a guy like Malisse, he is well-loved in Delray, has won the title 2 of the past 3 years, everyone who goes to that tournament likes him, etc. He is a big draw card for the tournament. What if Malisse was ballsy enough to say "i love this tournament but I hate round robin so I won't play here until the format is normal again"

If Malisse, Blake, and Haas did that, my guess it would be enough for Delray to scrap it. The whole point of RR is so that the "stars" are around for at least 2 matches. Well if the "stars" are gutsy enough to refuse to play at all.... bingo.

I think this is correct. So far the fields have not been significantly different from '06 at the same tournaments.

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 03:09 PM
I think this is correct. So far the fields have not been significantly different from '06 at the same tournaments.the problem is that you have players that really have connections to the tournaments and they're not going to just skip them because of that. Like Malisse in Delray beach, the guy said he loves that place, he loves playing there, he's treated like a hometown guy, etc. Even if he hates RR, I don't see him not playing. Same for Andy at Indianapolis and Washington DC. These guys don't change their schedules that much and for a lot of them if they miss specific tournaments, it might mess their schedule up.

So I don't really expect players to skip these tournaments that they have played their whole careers, etc. But the threat alone might be nice, I dunno :lol:

Corey Feldman
02-06-2007, 04:02 PM
So is Malisse the first player ever to lose in a tournament that he ends up winning?
and schuettler never even got through the group.

obviously not counting the Masters cup.

*M*
02-06-2007, 05:39 PM
Don't forget Blake and Ljubicic are on the players' council, maybe they aren't in quite the same situation as everyone else. Plus I wouldn't say what James said was in favor. He said he was not opposed to experimenting (can't fault that), and that he would go with what the fans think (can't fault that either).
I heard him say that as well. So my question is, how does fan feedback get back to them? Do we all just write to James? :devil: I mean, I've yet to see a fan speak out in favor of RR, and supposedly the reason the ATP is implementing it is because it's "for the fans" (yes, I realize it's actually "for the TD's").

nobama
02-06-2007, 06:48 PM
So far I have yet to see any benefits from RR. The two guys who made the finals in Delray Beach most likely would have gotten there anyway with the single elimination format. And since they're testing it out on mostly smaller tournaments I can't imagine there will be a noticable difference in TV coverage (certainly not in the USA anyway). How many tournaments last year really suffered from the best players being knocked out early? OK Hamburg and Paris had slightly weaker fields but that was due to some of the top seeds pulling out, not being eliminated early.

DrJules
02-06-2007, 06:59 PM
In Masters, a champion can lose even two matches (last year Nalbandian could be the first; this case was in 1995 doubles-Masters) :D I'm not against year end masters format but in my view better solution was in years 1982-1985 when was play-off format and "12 draw". But that format was also not ideal 'cause you could win only 3 matches before you got the title. In Masters should start 16 men (because rate is very equal) at play-off format like was in Compaq Grand Slam in years 1990-1997.
I'm a little surprise for a total critique of most MTF users. This format is trying in only 13 of 65 events and most of these events are Mickey-Mouse. If RR sucks will be expelled in 2008. This is clear for me. A novel solutions are good and bad. I'm sure in 1971 many people was disagree about the tie-breaks but who wants today watching matches like 7-9, 16-14, 10-8 in the 1st round of petty events? I think keeping distance is good, this is only funny tennis :devil:

Agree. Personally would prefer a combined mens and womens year end masters each with 16 player draws; 4 5 set matches for men and 4 3 set matches for women with a days rest between rounds running from Sunday to Sunday.

The reality is that the Mickey-Mouse events and the year end masters do share 3 problems; winners who lose a match, dead rubbers and too easy to fix the draw.

Maybe ALL round round events should be abolished.

ranaldo
02-06-2007, 07:51 PM
RR could kill the game or make it uninteresting.

Imagine this: Davydenko is playing his final match but he is already qualified. However, he already knows who he might be playing against in the next round (2 possible opponents): let's say Murray(2nd) or Berdych(1st) (who said it's not realistic :p ).
Cowardly he decides to loose his match in order to play Berdych: wouldn't the match suck ?

wally1
02-06-2007, 10:02 PM
I heard him say that as well. So my question is, how does fan feedback get back to them? Do we all just write to James? :devil: I mean, I've yet to see a fan speak out in favor of RR, and supposedly the reason the ATP is implementing it is because it's "for the fans" (yes, I realize it's actually "for the TD's").That's a good question. Are the ATP going to be conducting surveys at the RR tournaments? Or are they going to go by attendance numbers?

Deboogle!.
02-06-2007, 10:12 PM
I heard him say that as well. So my question is, how does fan feedback get back to them? Do we all just write to James? :devil: I mean, I've yet to see a fan speak out in favor of RR, and supposedly the reason the ATP is implementing it is because it's "for the fans" (yes, I realize it's actually "for the TD's").Good question, who knows :lol: Write to James on his website maybe, or maybe the webmaster can pass the messages to him? :scratch:

So far I have yet to see any benefits from RR. The two guys who made the finals in Delray Beach most likely would have gotten there anyway with the single elimination format. And since they're testing it out on mostly smaller tournaments I can't imagine there will be a noticable difference in TV coverage (certainly not in the USA anyway). How many tournaments last year really suffered from the best players being knocked out early? OK Hamburg and Paris had slightly weaker fields but that was due to some of the top seeds pulling out, not being eliminated early.It's hard to say because so far the tourneys have been 3 very weak fields (and are all often weak fields anyway). I think we will have to wait until a tournament that is typically very strong like Queens to see what happens.

Dusk Soldier
02-06-2007, 11:32 PM
many sports :p it's tennis.

RR :retard:
Right Tennis. The only sport where you don't have to win the most amount of points to win a match.

sondraj06
02-07-2007, 12:54 AM
O.K, I'm still unsure why everyone hates this format so much. Can anyone explain to me whats so awful about it. Why would players lose and still win matches. that is the only argument against it I could make out. I'd really like to know. thanx

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 12:58 AM
O.K, I'm still unsure why everyone hates this format so much. Can anyone explain to me whats so awful about it. Why would players lose and still win matches. that is the only argument against it I could make out. I'd really like to know. thanxIt's confusing for fans. It disproportionately helps the top players, who are less likely to lose multiple times in a row. It can lead to dead matches where two friends might help each other or fix the result.

That's just the beginning. Isn't that enough?

Johnny Groove
02-07-2007, 01:01 AM
It's confusing for fans. It disproportionately helps the top players, who are less likely to lose multiple times in a row. It can lead to dead matches where two friends might help each other or fix the result.

That's just the beginning. Isn't that enough?

its also a big joke for players in the MDE who potentially have to play 6 matches to win a MM event

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 01:07 AM
its also a big joke for players in the MDE who potentially have to play 6 matches to win a MM eventAh yes, and in the tourneys that don't have the MDE but instead have just a 24 draw, that's 8 less spots for lower-ranked guys who really need the first round losers paycheck (not to mention the opportunity to maybe even win a match)

We could probably keep going all day :)

sondraj06
02-07-2007, 01:22 AM
Isn't that the same as in other sports who do it the same way, I mean at some point you have to trust these athletes to be athletes and go on the honor system, I'm not for or against it i'm just trying to understand it and why so many people dislike it.

Regenbogen
02-07-2007, 01:27 AM
I don't like the basic idea, and it's too confusing as well. And tennis already seems to be something that non fans think is too confusing :lol:

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 01:29 AM
Isn't that the same as in other sports who do it the same way,I can't think of that many sports where you have dead matches/games that often. I mean maybe at the end of some of the sports that have seasons then playoffs, you have a team that has already made it into the playoffs playing another that either has also already made it or has already been eliminated, but I don't see the situations as comparable at all. There's a reason why Tennis is a special and unique sport; there's a reason why I watch tennis and not all those "other sports" :) I mean at some point you have to trust these athletes to be athletes and go on the honor system,Based on what? The ones who still try to dope, the ones who still get caught for match-fixing for betting purposes? Maybe it's only a few bad apples but they have spoiled it for the bunch. Plus, if I am a fan paying a lot of money to see something, I want it to matter or I at least want to feel like I am getting my money's worth. I have seen a couple dead Davis Cup rubbers in person where the players haven't tried, and I feel like I have completely wasted my money.I don't like the basic idea, and it's too confusing as well. And tennis already seems to be something that non fans think is too confusing :lol:That's the other thing. My mom, who has watched the 4 slams at least since she's known my dad (30+ years), still can't understand the scoring, she has no clue what "break serve" means and she doesn't even get that missing the first serve isn't something to feel badly for a player for. :lol: I can't even IMAGINE trying to explain this to her.

sondraj06
02-07-2007, 01:39 AM
I still don't get it, well how do they do it in golf. That's a individual sport that has tournaments all year round, maybe they could do it like that. I think a lot of the confusion for a lot of people comes from the fact that it is a individual sport. In fact that is the only thing I don't like about tennis, the fact that it has tournaments. I don't like that format, in fact I love the way other sports are because I think it is a better indication of who is the best. Not the one day you're in the next you're out format of tennis, becuase a lot of it does have to do with well i feel like crap. I'm sick today so i'm obiviously not playing my best so you tank at a slam that's not a great indication of who is the best in my opinion. and the fact that there are 4 grand slams so all the pressure is on perfoming you best for these careers highs. I kind of like the end of the year build up to one championship it makes it special. And it gives credence for me of all the work you've done to get to this point. Not just the work you've done in the past 2 weeks to get to this point. I never like the tournament Ideal, and if any one could come up with a solution for it i would be too happy. and the scoring as far as points is still confusing, for the reason that it's so individual, where in other sports you have a record wins loses that keeps going to the end of the season to see which two teams play in the championship, that's how I think sports should be.

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 01:46 AM
Well, I think what you have said is interesting and I'm not even sure if I agree or disagree. But I'm also not so sure what relevance all of that has to whether round robin is a good thing for tennis or not. As far as I know, tennis and golf are organized somewhat similarly. You have 4 slams, and a bunch of other tournaments that aren't as important. The difference is that the guys are not necessarily directly competing with each other but they are competing against the score, and the person who has the lowest score wins. But a sport where two guys are competing against each other is, say, Boxing, where it is the same - if one guy isn't feeling great, he loses, and he may lose the world title with it, or something. Tennis, golf, etc., are not like team league sports where you have a league of teams where there is one goal at the end of the season in mind. They're just different and I don't think it's really prudent to compare them. at the end of the football season, one team wins the Super Bowl. I can't imagine it any other way. And I can't imagine tennis any other way but the current tournament system (maybe fewer tournaments and with a different schedule, but ultimately the same basic idea as it is now).

I mean there is no perfect way. But the fact is, tennis is struggling. I appreciate the fact that the ATP is at least thinking outside the box and is willing to try new things (for example the sunday starts and best-of-3 finals are both good moves in my opinion), but I feel that RR is not what the sport needs to increase in popularity. I think more marketing, capitalizing on the internationality and the personal stories of the players, the fact that it is such a unique sport, and much more. There are so many things that make tennis so special and they're doing this that just ruins its integrity and makes it even harder for potential fans to understand.

Kalliopeia
02-07-2007, 01:47 AM
My mom, who has watched the 4 slams at least since she's known my dad (30+ years), still can't understand the scoring, she has no clue what "break serve" means and she doesn't even get that missing the first serve isn't something to feel badly for a player for. :lol: I can't even IMAGINE trying to explain this to her.

Oh God, ain't that the truth. I have a friend who I've been trying to explain the rules to since Indianapolis last year, and he still can't keep straight the difference between a let, a fault, and an ace. I've given up completely trying to explain what breaking serve means and why it's bad for the server. I'd never try to explain round robin to him. His head would explode. :lol:

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 01:58 AM
Oh God, ain't that the truth. I have a friend who I've been trying to explain the rules to since Indianapolis last year, and he still can't keep straight the difference between a let, a fault, and an ace. I've given up completely trying to explain what breaking serve means and why it's bad for the server. I'd never try to explain round robin to him. His head would explode. :lol::lol: my best memory is, well wow it's about 3 years ago now, but my mom and I went to the Scottsdale tourney when we were on vacation. Because of rain we had to exchange our tickets so she ended up being right behind me. Every time either player missed a serve, she'd put her hands on my shoulders and say "Aww!" It was heeeelarious :haha:

My mom reads the news every morning and sometimes when one of my favorite players wins or loses a big match and there's an article on the main news/sports pages about it, she'll email me about it :lol: I can totally picture it now:

Mom: sorry so-and-so lost
Me: Well, it doesn't matter, he just plays again tomorrow.
mom: HUH?

Yeah, it just wouldn't be pretty :rolls:

sondraj06
02-07-2007, 02:00 AM
I find it so funny when people can't get the rules of tennis right, I remember watching it the first time a it clicked Honestly it doesn't seem all that hard to me at all. the confusing part is the seating and the ranking and all that stuff I just let other people tell me what some one rank is because I don't get it, they should come up with something easier. What i think is confusing is golf and people seem to get that, so I don't see how some one is so confused by tennis scoring. And I do think it's a easier way to make these tournament where it seems more fair. I just don't know what it is, So I'm to willing try it.

Kalliopeia
02-07-2007, 02:18 AM
I find it so funny when people can't get the rules of tennis right, I remember watching it the first time a it clicked Honestly it doesn't seem all that hard to me at all. the confusing part is the seating and the ranking and all that stuff I just let other people tell me what some one rank is because I don't get it, they should come up with something easier. What i think is confusing is golf and people seem to get that, so I don't see how some one is so confused by tennis scoring. And I do think it's a easier way to make these tournament where it seems more fair. I just don't know what it is, So I'm to willing try it.

I can actually understand the scoring being confusing. I mean besides the bizarre "love, 15, 30, 40" (they always ask 'why not just 1, 2, 3, 4?) then you have to say 'ok if one player has 40 and he wins the next point, he wins that game. Unless the other player has 40, too. Then it's called deuce, and one or the other has to win two points in a row to win because they have to win by at least two points. If he gets one, it's advantage to him, but if he doesn't then it's back to deuce." "So, this can theoretically go on forever." "....yes. It can." :lol:

But anyway, there's nothing fair about Round Robin.

Action Jackson
02-07-2007, 04:09 AM
And I do think it's a easier way to make these tournament where it seems more fair. I just don't know what it is, So I'm to willing try it.

Do you actually know what you are saying with the above statment?

Leo
02-07-2007, 04:51 AM
It sucks a nut.

I didn't actually realize Malisse lost a match before going on to win the title. His comments are sad but funny. They reveal what is horrible about the RR system.

sondraj06
02-07-2007, 04:58 AM
Do you actually know what you are saying with the above statment?

what are you talking about

Action Jackson
02-07-2007, 05:05 AM
what are you talking about

You ask me this question, when it's you who is having problems comprehending.

And I do think it's a easier way to make these tournament where it seems more fair

You said this correct? If so, do you know what you mean with this statement in reference to RR.

Klaas_nalbandian
02-07-2007, 09:15 AM
I think the other system is better, in soccer those poule matches are often pretty boring ,knock out is better

oz_boz
02-07-2007, 09:15 AM
I don't like it.

scoobs
02-07-2007, 10:50 AM
I do think that's an excellent point - the rules and scoring of tennis are already fairly complicated for the layman to pick up - and I don't think ANY broadcaster does a good job of making that more accessible to any new fans who might be watching - they all talk as though everyone knows exactly what is going on.

I think that's a huge trick that they miss already - and RR just confuses the picture even further.

joeb_uk
02-07-2007, 02:46 PM
it's even worse than I thought it could be

DAMN RIGHT :D Get rid of this pile of crap! It is just a pointless format.

scoobs
02-07-2007, 02:56 PM
3/12 now that Båstad has opted out.

Labamba
02-07-2007, 03:17 PM
3/12 now that Båstad has opted out.

less is better :yeah:

Is Queen's still a RR tourney? 48-players, Monday-Sunday?

scoobs
02-07-2007, 03:19 PM
Yep - I have no idea how they're going to do all that in 7 days even with 3 reasonable courts - they're not doing sunday start and 48 man RR means no byes for the seeds, 16 3-man RR groups, which means if Sunday is Final and Saturday is Semis and Friday is QFs, then in 4 days they need to complete 48 matches to complete the RR phase on time.

That's going to be a tall order if there's any grief with the weather (and always count on some grief with the weather in London in June)

Labamba
02-07-2007, 03:28 PM
Yep - I have no idea how they're going to do all that in 7 days even with 3 reasonable courts - they're not doing sunday start and 48 man RR means no byes for the seeds, 16 3-man RR groups, which means if Sunday is Final and Saturday is Semis and Friday is QFs, then in 4 days they need to complete 48 matches to complete the RR phase on time.

That's going to be a tall order if there's any grief with the weather (and always count on some grief with the weather in London in June)

The schedule will be even worse than that, if it starts on Monday. Thursday is for R16, so that means 48 group matches in 3 days, 16 matches per day + doubles matches :tape: and if/when there's rain :help:

scoobs
02-07-2007, 03:29 PM
you're right, actually - they need to do a R16 too.

CR-A-AZY...

16 matches a day? + doubles?

Yeah that's gonna work REAL well.

Action Jackson
02-07-2007, 03:32 PM
Not sure about Queens, grass isn't my strong point.

scoobs
02-07-2007, 03:37 PM
They're gonna have to make much more use of the outside courts this year, that's for sure.

joeb_uk
02-07-2007, 03:53 PM
The first positive aspect of RR:eek:

That means with a ground pass at Queens you can see 11 of the 16 matches on the first three days without paying £60 for a seat on centre
:D

Hmmm I guess that is good, I am going to hopefully apply as a photographer but I doubt I will have any luck, so I will consider that! No exams this year, and should have finished uni before the season starts (so will be spending a full 3 weeks at the grass court events leading up to wimbledon).

Deboogle!.
02-07-2007, 05:18 PM
3/12 now that Båstad has opted out.ahhhhhh good news. tourneys backing out is a really good sign. Any word on why?

DrJules
02-07-2007, 07:58 PM
The first positive aspect of RR:eek:

That means with a ground pass at Queens you can see 11 of the 16 matches on the first three days without paying £60 for a seat on centre
:D

RR probably suits Queens as the event is seen as practice for Wimbledon. For most players the more matches the better.