An Open letter to Mr. Disney.

Dear Mr. De Villiers,

I have long admired your leadership role as the head of the ATP, so the news about your personal intervention in determining the qualifier in the Las Vegas tournament came as a complete surprise to me. The situation gave rise to questions about the future of the Round Robin format in professional men’s tennis that was introduced under your direction, so I will humbly submit my suggestions about how to act optimally in this situation.

The initiative to introduce the RR format initially was a brilliant idea, worthy of placing you to the pantheon of the most innovative corporate executives in history. There are many difficult problems facing professional tennis right now, but what is the point of working towards their solution if that will create unpleasant conflicts with certain constituents in the game? For example, changing the calendar so as to please both the players and the Technical Directors represents a challenge better left to your successor.

Instead of tackling the serious issues facing men’s tennis, you wisely started with a cosmetic change, designed to appeal simultaneously to top players and tournament organizers. The RR format benefits the top players, guaranteeing a minimum number of matches and allowing them to qualify from the group stage even if they happen to lose a match. On the other hand, the TD can better promote their star players. Of course there are minor problems with the idea, as it ensures a lower number of players entering a given tournament, making the progress of young upcoming players or players coming back from injury harder. But who cares about these players? They do not carry any power or proper representation so you may safely ignore them anyway.

The events of Las Vegas came as an unwelcome surprise. You heard first about the situation in Buenos Aires where Ferrero was unable to advance dues to a retirement in his group. But who cares about a minor event in Argentina? On the other hand, the situation in Las Vegas was different. James Blake, one of the most popular and recognizable players in the tour, would be eliminated based on the standing rules. Moreover, the tournament faced the risk of low ticket sales during the coming weekend, losing its biggest star attraction. So you decide to intervene, changing the rules so as to ensure that James Blake qualifies. Then the next morning you realized that you didn’t have the authority to intervene in the first place, so you switched back to the original decision, after a face saving statement that the RR format is under investigation.

The whole situation leaves you in an embarrassing position. Critics may question your objectivity and impartiality since your decision benefited the top, popular player against the unknown, low ranked young opponent. The press may question your role in the affair and your supervision that allowed the mess to develop in Buenos Aires and Las Vegas. Some heretics may even dare to question your competence, since you were not even aware that you didn’t have the authority to intervene in the first place. The top players and tournament directors may question your usefulness, since your rule didn’t serve them sufficiently to begin with.

As the undisputed master of corporate politics that you are, you need to silence these critics as fast as possible. Those idiots think that it is important for the head of the ATP to be competent. They know nothing about competence. Give the smart ones 10,000 nails and ask them to construct a spaceship. Can they do it? You must first reinforce your image as a visionary not afraid to make changes. Call journalists who owe you favors so that they say that your intervention showed what a fearless leader you are. Furthermore, you can regain the high ground by being the first to suggest that the RR format must be stopped immediately. Never mind that you are directly responsible for the introduction and implementation of RR. This is a tiny detail; you can blame technicalities inherent in the format for the difficulties and appear sensitive to the players’ objections.

Mr. Chairman, your admirers expect a lot from you. Do not let your cynic detractors prevail. It is time to skip this cosmetic change and prepare for the introduction of the next one. I will remain available for ideas and suggestions. I am glad for the opportunity to address you.

Best Regards,
Merton.

Dear Mr. De Villiers,

I have long admired your leadership role as the head of the ATP, so the news about your personal intervention in determining the qualifier in the Las Vegas tournament came as a complete surprise to me. The situation gave rise to questions about the future of the Round Robin format in professional men’s tennis that was introduced under your direction, so I will humbly submit my suggestions about how to act optimally in this situation.

The initiative to introduce the RR format initially was a brilliant idea, worthy of placing you to the pantheon of the most innovative corporate executives in history. There are many difficult problems facing professional tennis right now, but what is the point of working towards their solution if that will create unpleasant conflicts with certain constituents in the game? For example, changing the calendar so as to please both the players and the Technical Directors represents a challenge better left to your successor.

Instead of tackling the serious issues facing men’s tennis, you wisely started with a cosmetic change, designed to appeal simultaneously to top players and tournament organizers. The RR format benefits the top players, guaranteeing a minimum number of matches and allowing them to qualify from the group stage even if they happen to lose a match. On the other hand, the TD can better promote their star players. Of course there are minor problems with the idea, as it ensures a lower number of players entering a given tournament, making the progress of young upcoming players or players coming back from injury harder. But who cares about these players? They do not carry any power or proper representation so you may safely ignore them anyway.

The events of Las Vegas came as an unwelcome surprise. You heard first about the situation in Buenos Aires where Ferrero was unable to advance dues to a retirement in his group. But who cares about a minor event in Argentina? On the other hand, the situation in Las Vegas was different. James Blake, one of the most popular and recognizable players in the tour, would be eliminated based on the standing rules. Moreover, the tournament faced the risk of low ticket sales during the coming weekend, losing its biggest star attraction. So you decide to intervene, changing the rules so as to ensure that James Blake qualifies. Then the next morning you realized that you didn’t have the authority to intervene in the first place, so you switched back to the original decision, after a face saving statement that the RR format is under investigation.

The whole situation leaves you in an embarrassing position. Critics may question your objectivity and impartiality since your decision benefited the top, popular player against the unknown, low ranked young opponent. The press may question your role in the affair and your supervision that allowed the mess to develop in Buenos Aires and Las Vegas. Some heretics may even dare to question your competence, since you were not even aware that you didn’t have the authority to intervene in the first place. The top players and tournament directors may question your usefulness, since your rule didn’t serve them sufficiently to begin with.

As the undisputed master of corporate politics that you are, you need to silence these critics as fast as possible. Those idiots think that it is important for the head of the ATP to be competent. They know nothing about competence. Give the smart ones 10,000 nails and ask them to construct a spaceship. Can they do it? You must first reinforce your image as a visionary not afraid to make changes. Call journalists who owe you favors so that they say that your intervention showed what a fearless leader you are. Furthermore, you can regain the high ground by being the first to suggest that the RR format must be stopped immediately. Never mind that you are directly responsible for the introduction and implementation of RR. This is a tiny detail; you can blame technicalities inherent in the format for the difficulties and appear sensitive to the players’ objections.

Mr. Chairman, your admirers expect a lot from you. Do not let your cynic detractors prevail. It is time to skip this cosmetic change and prepare for the introduction of the next one. I will remain available for ideas and suggestions. I am glad for the opportunity to address you.

Best Regards,
Merton.Do you write for the Onion? :worship:

Merton = Brazilliant!!! :worship:

you lose your credibility in the first line. even he won't believe that someone admired him.

you lose your credibility in the first line. even he won't believe that someone admired him.

Who said I want to be credible? I was thinking whether to go for satire or for something serious but felt like having fun.

good job Merton, please follow through.

Do you write for the Onion? :worship:

Mylady, that is the highest praise I ever had in this forum. :worship:

good job Merton, please follow through.

I will, I plan to send this to the ATP and influential journalists.

Enough already, geez....

Mylady, that is the highest praise I ever had in this forum. :worship:With my opinion of the Onion, it certainly is.

Merton, great letter!

:lol:

Great satirical piece! :yeah:

Kudos... :worship:

Dear Mr. De Villiers,

I have long admired your leadership role as the head of the ATP

Merton, you're not Mr. Disney are you? :o

:haha: :haha: Too good!

:bowdown:

The RR creator deserves this honour, well put!

haha
I see people are already wasting hours of their time to write to somebody who does not listen to them or only to bash him on board that is use-less, sorry

haha
I see people are already wasting hours of their time to write to somebody who does not listen to them or only to bash him on board that is use-less, sorry

I do agree in this instance. Merton's letter is good, but I doubt it will even be read by anyone senior in the ATP. :shrug:

You're right on, Merton. Push that letter.

too good :worship:
:haha: :haha: :haha:

The pen :confused: (keyboard) is mightier than the sword.

ATP removes Blake, reinstates Korolev in Vegas
An incorrect variation of ATP rules resulted in the erroneous passage of James Blake into the quarterfinals of the Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas, and according to the rules Evgeny Korolev will advance instead of Blake, the ATP announced today.

Blake had advanced after ATP Chairman and President Etienne de Villiers had been called in to discuss a controversial end to the Blake/Korolev/Juan Martin del Potro group. Blake needed to complete his match, beat del Potro in straight sets and concede five games or less. Blake was leading 6-1, 3-1 when del Potro retired from the match with breathing problems.

The relevant rule states that an incomplete match shall not count as a match played for the retiring player. This eliminated del Potro based on the tiebreak procedure for greatest number of completed matches and left only Blake and Korolev tied with 1-1 records. Therefore, under ATP rules Korolev should have advanced having beaten Blake in their round robin encounter.

The same ATP Rulebook prevents the ATP Chairman and President or any ATP staff member from making a judgment call on the rules, as no variation can be implemented without ATP Board approval. The rules state that the final decision at a tournament rests solely with the ATP Supervisor.

“I was contacted late at night my time and did not fully understand the issues being discussed and I made a judgment call on what seemed fair. However I understand that judgment calls are not part of the rule book and I must abide by the rules, as must everybody else in the circumstance,” de Villiers said.

‘This is of course an unpleasant situation for all involved, but we must abide strictly by the rules. I apologize to James for giving false hope and to Evgeny for the confusion. I said we would be prepared to make mistakes but that we would reverse them if necessary and learn from them.”

“I hope that it is recognized that I acted in good faith and my intentions were to do the right thing and see fairness prevail. Clearly, I was wrong to intervene. I have always maintained that we should experiment with new and different ideas and it was with this in mind that I made what I thought was a fair call.”

“I regret that I got involved, that I overruled a Supervisor and I regret this storm in a teacup,” said de Villiers.“What this situation and a somewhat similar confusing end to a group result in Buenos Aires have shown is that the experiment has brought a sharp focus onto specific flaws involved with round robin competition and the review of the format and the decision as to whether to continue at all, will now be brought forward.”

The experiment with round robin play, inspired and supported by research that showed strong support for the format by fans, was to have involved 12 – 13 tournaments over the entire 2007 ATP season.

“Discussions with ATP Board members and other parties have already started and the future of round robin play has now been put on the agenda for the ATP Board meeting, starting in Miami on March 22,” de Villiers said.