If you like round robins, please sign here [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If you like round robins, please sign here

nrota
03-03-2007, 07:57 AM
Tennis needs change to attract a bigger audience and round robins are a good start. The Blake debacle was unfortunate but fixable and tennis is now more exciting. You can't afford to space out for a few games or drop a set because that could make the difference between advancing or not.

I've put up a petition here (http://www.petitiononline.com/38253825/petition.html) because it's important to resist the urge to revert back to tradition when something like the Blake situation comes up. Keep the round robin format and develop it until it works properly.

Nina
tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

Iza
03-03-2007, 08:04 AM
:spit: you're joking, right?

or u must be Mr. Disney himself :scratch:

Bobby
03-03-2007, 08:12 AM
Well, the ATP could develop the round robin format for 20 years, and it still wouldn't work properly. Round robin won't atrract bigger audience, simply because the system is extremely confusing. I'm sorry, but I will not sign your petition. I believe that the ATP will abandon the round robin within the next year or so. Yeah Baby!

FanofFederer
03-03-2007, 08:27 AM
i agree friend. the format has problems but they can be ironed out. round robin is less watchable for me but if it increase tennis' fan base and brings in more revenue then i am for it. i am willing to sacrifice some of my own personal entertainment from some some mickey-mouse tournaments if it really will improve the prospects of the game=)

federerfan7465
03-03-2007, 08:43 AM
no sign


booo round robin

trixtah
03-03-2007, 09:01 AM
Well, the ATP could develop the round robin format for 20 years, and it still wouldn't work properly. Round robin won't atrract bigger audience, simply because the system is extremely confusing. I'm sorry, but I will not sign your petition. I believe that the ATP will abandon the round robin within the next year or so. Yeah Baby!

yeah, round robins are extremely confusing. To a third grader maybe. Iron out the problems and I think it would be a unique addition--unique with a positive connotation for those who are going to put words in my mouth. Not signing any petitions though, because WTF is with all the petitions? Not like you're going to get anything accomplished.

Bobby
03-03-2007, 09:01 AM
i agree friend. the format has problems but they can be ironed out. round robin is less watchable for me but if it increase tennis' fan base and brings in more revenue then i am for it. i am willing to sacrifice some of my own personal entertainment from some some mickey-mouse tournaments if it really will improve the prospects of the game=)

How will it improve the prospects of the game? And how will it increase the fan base? How will it bring more revenue? What we have seen so far, is that even the players are not familiar with the format, let alone the audience. MTF consists of people, who watch tennis and know more about it than the average guy. If people here don't approve and understand the format, how are you going to sell it to the "normal audience"?

Those "mickey mouse tournaments" happen to be important for some of the countries they are played in, by the way...

Bobby
03-03-2007, 09:08 AM
yeah, round robins are extremely confusing. To a third grader maybe. Iron out the problems and I think it would be a unique addition--unique with a positive connotation for those who are going to put words in my mouth. Not signing any petitions though, because WTF is with all the petitions? Not like you're going to get anything accomplished.

No, it's confusing for an average spectator. People want to see matches, where the winner advances, and the loser packs his bags. Not matches, where the loser advances if he wins more than seven games AND a certain player wins another, but so that he won't lose more than 8 games. Or something like this...

Ferrero Forever
03-03-2007, 09:22 AM
Tennis needs change to attract a bigger audience and round robins are a good start. The Blake debacle was unfortunate but fixable and tennis is now more exciting. You can't afford to space out for a few games or drop a set because that could make the difference between advancing or not.

I've put up a petition here (http://www.petitiononline.com/38253825/petition.html) because it's important to resist the urge to revert back to tradition when something like the Blake situation comes up. Keep the round robin format and develop it until it works properly.

Nina
tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

Wasn't just Blake. Ferrero got the shitty end of the stick in Buenos Aires too!!!

Bobby
03-03-2007, 09:33 AM
Remember what happened in Delray Beach? Was it Malisse who needed to win only one set against Schuetteler? He did and tanked the rest of the match. Surely no spectator will pay to see matches like this.

Adler
03-03-2007, 09:35 AM
Please delete this thread
What about freedom of speech? I dislike RR for many reasons (some of them were already mentioned here), but come on, admiring it is not facism or something

Frooty_Bazooty
03-03-2007, 12:48 PM
I like the round robin format and I know that there have to be others out there.

Even if you only think its ok, thats not hating it so please post too. Im sick of hearing one side of the fence whining all day

PS: It is only fair that this thread is made sticky too

Horatio Caine
03-03-2007, 01:00 PM
I like it more than I did when the idea was first bounced around (but I still think it is crap :p)...but I'm not happy with some of the situations it has presented (e.g. Malisse in Delray and Blake / Korolev in Las Vegas). It needs a bit of an overhaul...but I'm not sure what can be done to improve the current format to be honest.

au_sports_opinion
03-03-2007, 01:40 PM
it might be easier to follow if they began the group stage from the very first round.

nrota
03-03-2007, 06:45 PM
My previous post about a petition in support of round robins was removed and redirected to the petition against round robins. As far as I know, I've broken no rules and I assume this is a forum for open discussion so I'm posting it again.

There should be a free and open discussion about this issue because that's what's fun about sports - people passionately disagree. In the rest of my life I live in a democracy. The petition is here (http://www.petitiononline.com/38253825/petition.html).

Please weigh in on your opinion.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

jayjay
03-03-2007, 06:52 PM
Hi Nina,

On page 10 of the "If you hate RR" thread, I commented on some of the points you raised, would be interested in any counters you may have. Thanks. :)

Julio1974
03-03-2007, 06:54 PM
My previous post about a petition in support of round robins was removed and redirected to the petition against round robins. As far as I know, I've broken no rules and I assume this is a forum for open discussion so I'm posting it again.

There should be a free and open discussion about this issue because that's what's fun about sports - people passionately disagree. In the rest of my life I live in a democracy. The petition is here (http://www.petitiononline.com/38253825/petition.html).

Please weigh in on your opinion.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

Hello Mr de Villers,
we are glad to know you read this forum..
:wavey:

Neely
03-03-2007, 07:04 PM
My previous post about a petition in support of round robins was removed and redirected to the petition against round robins. As far as I know, I've broken no rules and I assume this is a forum for open discussion so I'm posting it again.
Sorry, that was my fault and I confused the thread title to put it into the wrong thread during the chaos of "I hate Blake" and "I hate RR" overkill nonsense which was going on today.

Do you want your 'old' thread back and attached to this one?

GlennMirnyi
03-03-2007, 07:05 PM
:haha: People in favour of RR... :lol: :retard:

Saumon
03-03-2007, 07:06 PM
Hahaha :haha:
and out of the 4 signatures one is "Round Robin sucks." hahaha

everybody knows the fan LOVE Round Robins! :hearts:

MarieS
03-03-2007, 07:10 PM
Hahaha :haha:
and out of the 4 signatures one is "Round Robin sucks." hahaha

everybody knows the fans LOVE Round Robins! :hearts:

This clearly shows the overwhelming fan support Disney was talking about :shrug:.

mtw
03-03-2007, 07:17 PM
This system is quite good, if concerns matches, which lasts not longer, as 3 sets. It can concern ATP tours or MS. This can be useful in Grand Slam Tours, when this group phase would take not more, than 3 sets too. Besides this system is really fair in other sport disciplines. I suppose, that in tennis too.

nrota
03-03-2007, 07:18 PM
Sorry, that was my fault and I confused the thread title to put it into the wrong thread during the chaos of "I hate Blake" and "I hate RR" overkill nonsense which was going on today.

Do you want your 'old' thread back and attached to this one?

Hi Neely,

Thanks, yes please, I would.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

David Kenzie
03-03-2007, 07:36 PM
People who like RR don't understand tennis. In Tennis a win is a win and a loss is a loss. The number of games or sets won or lost must never be a factor in determining if a player is knocked out or not. I wouldn't worry about some stadiums beeing empty, tennis is one of the most popular sports in the world and I don't see that changing anytime soon, unless these stupid changes keep comming.

R.Federer
03-03-2007, 07:39 PM
You will see that unanimity on anything at MTF is extremely uncommon. People here have strong likes and dislikes, are of different ages, countries and with widely varying tastes -- only thing common is they are uber tennis fans.

But on the issue of Round Robins, there is unusual unanimous disapproval. That says a lot. I think you are in a tiny minority.

Nevertheless, you do not deserve all those bad reps!

I will post on your web page and PM you.

tangerine_dream
03-03-2007, 07:41 PM
I like the RR format for TMC, but that's about it.

Matthew Cronin made a suggestion about how to amend the current RR format for Tier II-sized tournaments:

http://www.tennisreporters.net/blake_atp_030207_c.html
Now back to the my original thesis: It is not the round-robin format that should be in question here, it's how the ATP has set up the current round robins. They are way too big and too difficult for fans to understand.

There is a much simpler round-robin formula that would work for Tier II-sized tournaments: four groups of four, with the winner from each group advancing to the semis, which become a knockout. Tournaments would seed eight guys, two in each group. There would be one knockout round prior to that of 16-man round robin, eight who are seeded. The tournament would be a qualifying draw into the eight open spots. That way, the playing masses are appeased by having opportunities to work themselves into tournaments. The tournament directors would be happy because their top eight guys would play at least three times, and the stars would be pleased because they would not be required to play more than five matches.

It's that simple. To get into the knockout round, matches won would take precedence, than head-to-head, than a games won/lost percentage. Retirement results cannot count, because they are too easy to manipulate.

Fans? They could understand this formula easily.

What do you guys think?

TennisGrandSlam
03-03-2007, 07:41 PM
My previous post about a petition in support of round robins was removed and redirected to the petition against round robins. As far as I know, I've broken no rules and I assume this is a forum for open discussion so I'm posting it again.

There should be a free and open discussion about this issue because that's what's fun about sports - people passionately disagree. In the rest of my life I live in a democracy. The petition is here (http://www.petitiononline.com/38253825/petition.html).

Please weigh in on your opinion.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)



Tennis League rather than RR :devil:

R.Federer
03-03-2007, 07:48 PM
I like the RR format for TMC, but that's about it.

Matthew Cronin made a suggestion about how to amend the current RR format for Tier II-sized tournaments:

http://www.tennisreporters.net/blake_atp_030207_c.html


What do you guys think?

No one has complained about the robin for TMC because there, players are about as close in tennis quality and in rank as possible. Except for unusual circumstances (Federer era is one), #1 and #5 are not terribly disparate in quality. It is not taken as a major surprise when #7 beats #2 for instance.
It is thus sensible that they square off against one another.

About the Cronin format, it does alleviate the problem a bit but the main issue remains. One STILL has two guys of much higher quality who will have great chances to get through despite having an off day against a hapless low ranked person who cannot celebrate the win of his life by going to the knockout stage.

Robins really only work well when you have a pool of players about as close in quality as can be.

nrota
03-03-2007, 07:52 PM
You will see that unanimity on anything at MTF is extremely uncommon. People here have strong likes and dislikes, are of different ages, countries and with widely varying tastes -- only thing common is they are uber tennis fans.

But on the issue of Round Robins, there is unusual unanimous disapproval. That says a lot. I think you are in a tiny minority.

Nevertheless, you do not deserve all those bad reps!

I will post on your web page and PM you.

Thanks Jamie for your messages. Yeah, I do appear to be in the minority :0). I'm a bit surprised by the degree of animosity towards round robin and though de Villiers didn't help, it also looks like resistance to change in a sport that has been tradition bound. They did change the doubles format though that to reduce its drag on tournament directors, and they did add instant replay though American football has had that for some time, but Team Tennis is the closed to innovation in singles. I'm also a bit surprised because the biggest sporting event in the world is round robin: World Cup.

I like Cronin's suggestions, I would be happy if the focus was not round robin or no round robin but the best way to structure round robins. There's match play in golf and there is also, well, what to do you call it when it's not match play? Tennis can have round robin and single elimination, there's room for both.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

R.Federer
03-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Thanks Jamie for your messages. Yeah, I do appear to be in the minority :0). I'm a bit surprised by the degree of animosity towards round robin and though de Villiers didn't help, it also looks like resistance to change in a sport that has been tradition bound.

Well, a lot of fans, even those resistant to hawkeye and challenges as becoming part of the game, did not oppose RR because of the traditions of the game. An issue which is problematic is that the round robins grossly favor the player who is better *on average*. Low ranked players have to play exceedingly well to get a win over a top player, and then despite that cannot get to knockout and have a chance to make a win, make a name, get some money and get some points. Without those additional points, they are unfairly made to play higher ranked players in early rounds in future tournaments, that they would have avoided with knockout. This is an elitist feature of round robins that is unsavory to many.

And round robins have been introduced without opposition, example- in TMC, because it is generally true that over there there is not a terribly large disparity (in usual times) between #1-#8.

EDIT -- It seems that (excluding a few people like you who seem to know tennis), that this format is nice for those who know the names of a few top players and really don't want to be "disappointed" in a final that is being contested by Korolev and del Potro, when the field included Blake, Safin and Hewitt.

jayjay
03-03-2007, 08:02 PM
Hi Nina,

Due to the chopping and changing of the threads, my response to you is now on page 9 of the "Hate RR" thread.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4973295&postcount=130

Would appreciate a counter to any or all of those points. Thanks. :)

Agree with R.Federer, no reason for you to be bad repped just because you happen to like RR. All I ask is that you detail why you love RR, and why you think the pros outweigh the cons, is it just about the top players for you, for example?

As we know RR was introduced in the main to make sure the "fans" got to see more of the top players in the event they should have a bad day at the office early on.

I find it all incredibly cosmetic and contrived, we may as well just fast forward every tournament to the QF's and have the top 8 seeds play. But that is not sport. Sport is about competition, but on an equal footing in tennis. One on one. On any given day, a player ranked 120 can topple the player ranked 20 or even 10. It happens, it's happened before, it'll happen again.

But now, it's not enough for a player to beat a top guy once, he has to hope that the top player doesn't come out firing the next day and cream his opponent. And then make sure that he can win another match just to qualify, having seemingly done the hard work by beating a top player to begin with.

For Masters Cup it's a concept that works, it's a showpiece finale to the tour season and we get to see the cream of the crop from the get go who have earned their place there after a tough 11 months on tour.

There are many things that could do with changing in and around tennis, the KO format was not one of them, it's taken away alot of interest for a proportion of matches.

A player knows he can lose his first match, and as long as he doesn't lose it too badly, he can still have another crack another day. Where's the motivation to bring your best effort each and everytime you step out on court?

Tanking is part of tennis, we all know that, and happens even with KO matches. But tanking is now even more likely than before, and we've seen it already this season and the players have come out and said just that. Not that they intentionally lost, but certainly that it wasn't the end of the world if they did, because they were already through or knew that they would have another match to put things right.

Where is the suspense? Where is the interest in matches like these especially at "smaller" events that already struggle to live up to the mania created at Slams or Masters events.

I think it's unwise to just bracket everyone who is against RR as being against change fullstop. I for one, love Hawk-Eye. But not for the oohs and ahhs it might generate from a live audience, but because I've seen too many matches in the recent past that have been ruined by some incredibly poor line calling. Hawk-Eye is not perfect, but it helps, even just a little. At least it gives the player piece of mind in most cases, not all granted, but mostly.

RR? Does it solve a problem? No. It causes one.

zicofirol
03-03-2007, 08:05 PM
yeah, round robins are extremely confusing. To a third grader maybe. Iron out the problems and I think it would be a unique addition--unique with a positive connotation for those who are going to put words in my mouth. Not signing any petitions though, because WTF is with all the petitions? Not like you're going to get anything accomplished.

what problems? the fact that you have to resort to games or sets won is ridiculous already, RR cant work period...

zicofirol
03-03-2007, 08:08 PM
Thanks Jamie for your messages. Yeah, I do appear to be in the minority :0). I'm a bit surprised by the degree of animosity towards round robin and though de Villiers didn't help, it also looks like resistance to change in a sport that has been tradition bound. They did change the doubles format though that to reduce its drag on tournament directors, and they did add instant replay though American football has had that for some time, but Team Tennis is the closed to innovation in singles. I'm also a bit surprised because the biggest sporting event in the world is round robin: World Cup.

I like Cronin's suggestions, I would be happy if the focus was not round robin or no round robin but the best way to structure round robins. There's match play in golf and there is also, well, what to do you call it when it's not match play? Tennis can have round robin and single elimination, there's room for both.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

it has nothing to do with tradition, most people agree with hawk eye, shortening the calendar etc. but RR is a failure because of the format of having groups of 3, it just cant work, youll have players advancing or not advancing because of retirements etc. what would you fix about the ferrero ro blake situation? how would you fix it? any fix would also be unfair, its dumb period...

All_Slam_Andre
03-03-2007, 08:16 PM
:lol: The pro round robin petition has 8 signatures, 4 of the people who've signed it have left comments saying how much they hate the format. One person called De Villiers the 'white devil'. Looks like this petition is doing really well :haha:

morningglory
03-03-2007, 08:37 PM
RR is crap. Period.

madmanfool
03-03-2007, 08:43 PM
"The better approach is to award all six games in the remaining sets to the winner if a player retires. In that case, Blake would have won his match 6-1, 6-3, and advanced. Itís not perfect, if Del Potro had retired early in the first set, Blake wouldnít have deserved the victory, but at least you know the retirement was for real and no one complains in single elimination tournaments when a player advances due to a retirement"

Are you serious about this:rolleyes: ???

Why i don't like RR:

1. Tanking. Tanking to me, is just..unforgivable. So far we have had like what, 5 RR tournaments? And look at the situations we have already got;
Malisse not bothering after having won the first set against Schuettler, J Johansson being completely depended on the good will of Simon to compete against Serra, while Simon had no chance of proceding (luckely for him Serra retired during the match), Gaudio not bothering after having lost his first match and leaves the tournament.

2. Too confusing..I know very well how the atp rankings work, which tournaments come on, fall off wether it's challengers, futures or regular atp tournaments, mandatory tournaments and stuff..but this RR is chinese for me.

3. The idea of having a criteria which involves the number of games. The number of games is so meaningless in tennis, it's not football where the goal ratio does matter imo. Say i'm Karlovic, i make it to the tiebreak because of my serve, never got a chance on the other guy's serve and in the tiebreak i lose easy, but in games it's only 7-6. Do i deserve more then an other player?

4. The circus around Blake-Korolev, although having to do little with the format more with the people running it, isn't helping either.

DrJules
03-03-2007, 08:44 PM
I like the RR format for TMC, but that's about it.

Matthew Cronin made a suggestion about how to amend the current RR format for Tier II-sized tournaments:

http://www.tennisreporters.net/blake_atp_030207_c.html


What do you guys think?

I actually would like the end of all RR including the year end RR format as well. The ability of a player to win the year end event after losing a match did seem odd e.g. Nalbandian in 2005.

I feel a joint mens (5 sets) and womens (3 sets) 16 player knockout event would be better to end the year. Hoping the reaction against RR will remove the year end RR.

DrJules
03-03-2007, 08:48 PM
RR is crap. Period.

The problem is too many matches are dead or rather convienient to lose; the year end masters has been plagued with this problem with players losing matches to have favourable semi-finals or not trying to save energy once qualified.

tangerine_dream
03-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Is this our MTF admin Steve who signed Rota's petition:

Steve - Please ignore the luddites and their witch-hunt and keep RR going, but please sort out the rules first!

Okay I admit: I had to go look up the word luddite (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luddites). Clever analogy, Steve. :cool:

nrota
03-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Hi JayJay,

To some degree, yes, it is about the top players. When I pick the draws of tournaments every week, I keep track of Never-Mets, matches between players who've never met before. I often find instances where players have been on the tour four or five years and more who've never played each other. Part of that has to do with clay courters liking to stay on clay and hard court players staying on hard court but I think it's a real problem.

We have very few rivalries and the one we did have, Federer-Nadal, seems to have melted away except on clay. A NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan can see drivers battle each other every week and develop loyalties that are harder to do in tennis because it doesn't have enough marquee players meeting weekly.

Another reason for that is the global spread of the game and three tournament in one week on three different continents doesn't help. Hopefully changing the schedule will help that but tournament directors have the same number of seats on the board of directors as the players so I don't know how far that will go.

I, personally, would even reduce the number of qualifiers in each tournament. I can't think of another sport that lets so many qualifiers into tournaments every week. Golf has qualifying tournaments for slams I believe but even then the number of spots is very small compared to field size.

Speaking of golf, as for lose or go home, some tournaments are match play - you lose or go home - and some are stroke play, you can have a bad day and still end up winning. There's room for both approaches in tennis.

As for not having motivation if you can come back the next day if you lose, consider also this: if you take a few games off or lose a set, that could be the difference in a tiebreaker between advancing or not so each game becomes more valuable.

Not everyone is against round robins, I agree, a lot of people just think the current version is bad, but the response has been so overwhelmingly negative that I thought it was important to weigh in so the ATP doesn't dump it. I think tennis is behind other sports in terms of innovating and I think it should continue developing round robins. The biggest sporting event in the world, World Cup, is four team round robin and that is probably, as Matt Cronin says, the best way to proceed.

Thanks, Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

Fee
03-03-2007, 09:18 PM
Is this our MTF admin Steve who signed Rota's petition:

Steve - Please ignore the luddites and their witch-hunt and keep RR going, but please sort out the rules first!

Okay I admit: I had to go look up the word luddite (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luddites). Clever analogy, Steve. :cool:

I sincerely doubt that is our Steve, his writing is different than that.

Naranoc
03-03-2007, 09:24 PM
Round robins :lick:

keqtqiadv
03-03-2007, 09:27 PM
knock-out format :rocker2:

All_Slam_Andre
03-03-2007, 09:29 PM
Death to round robin :timebomb:

jayjay
03-03-2007, 09:31 PM
[QUOTE=nrota;4974348]Hi JayJay,

Hi Nina, thanks for the response. :)

To some degree, yes, it is about the top players.

I see this as a problem. Sure for tournament directors, they want the big names to fill the stadium. I think everyone understands their desire for this, but there is a greater issue at stake. ALL of the players. Before Roger Federer was Roger Federer, he was ranked in the 300's, 200's, 100's.

I think there is something really cool about following a players career from as early as possible and seeing that player develop bit by bit, at one stage it might be a Challenger title, then it's making the main draw of an ATP event through qualifying, then getting the 1st ATP Tour win, making the 1st Masters, getting the 1st title, beating the 1st top 10 or 20 player and so on...

There are many milestones and landmarks to any players career before the select few end up reaching the pinnacle of the sport, either with a Slam win or top 10 place or better.

RR makes that process a little harder (when it is already hard) and more convoluted (where it need not be). Korolev beat James Blake, a good win over a top 10er. But for example, had JMDP not retired and Blake had beaten him by the required scoreline, Korolev would have been out and that landmark win ends up meaning not as much as it would ordinarily do in a KO phase.

Tennis is about more than just the best player in the world or the top 10, and although those marquee players are of course the ones more lauded and celebrated. Before they got there, they were nobodies. Tennis fans more than anyone else should know that and appreciate that and not try to squeeze the pool of elite talent further.

We have very few rivalries and the one we did have, Federer-Nadal, seems to have melted away except on clay.

But you can't manufacture a rivalry. Actually you can, but then Tennis would be WWF/WWE and I'm unwilling to accept such manufactured situations unless Trish Stratus or Stephanie McMahon are umpiring.

RR doesn't do anything for rivalries, does it? I don't see the connection, maybe you can expand on that?

A NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan can see drivers battle each other every week and develop loyalties that are harder to do in tennis because it doesn't have enough marquee players meeting weekly.

But in the case of Federer/Nadal, they now haven't met more than once in 6 or so months because Nadal is not getting to finals. What do you suggest, that the road be made easier for Nadal just so he can?

Those who win their matches deserve to play the finals, not those who are more desireable to be there for TV ratings.

Another reason for that is the global spread of the game and three tournament in one week on three different continents doesn't help. Hopefully changing the schedule will help that but tournament directors have the same number of seats on the board of directors as the players so I don't know how far that will go.

Fair point, but again, RR is no help on this issue.

Speaking of golf, as for lose or go home, some tournaments are match play - you lose or go home - and some are stroke play, you can have a bad day and still end up winning. There's room for both approaches in tennis.

But just because other sports have other variations is no reason to implement that kind of matchplay into tennis. Different sports have different audiences, with various nuances, some respect the history of the game more than others, some have traditions or values that are the core of its sport.

I'm only 26, so it's not like I'm some "old fart" who just is not willing to see change and would like everyone back in all white.

As for not having motivation if you can come back the next day if you lose, consider also this: if you take a few games off or lose a set, that could be the difference in a tiebreaker between advancing or not so each game becomes more valuable.

Yes, but also more complex for the players and fans, and this is surely not "fan friendly". Sport doesn't have to be so complex, we are not looking to constantly solve equations to figure out who may or may not go through.

I am fully up to speed with the essence of RR, be it through other sports or tennis. But not everyone is like you or I, and especially not the "casual" fan that Mr. de Villiers is so willing to please. I think the outsiders looking in are probably wondering how on earth a sport can be so muddled, how ridiculous for it to be up for debate which player won a RR group? :lol:

The rules are there and unfortunately the ATP for too long a period couldn't even adhere to their own rules.

Not everyone is against round robins, I agree, a lot of people just think the current version is bad, but the response has been so overwhelmingly negative that I thought it was important to weigh in so the ATP doesn't dump it.

On the contrary, the ATP seem quite certain that "the fans love RR." So if any group of people here are not being heard, it is those of us against RR. I believe we are the silent majority, but maybe not so silent anymore. And the petition I set up was just to formulate a quick figure over the space of a couple of weeks, get it out to the ATP before the meeting in Miami and compare our numbers with their own research (which we have been waiting to see for a long time now).

Don't you find it strange that this full proof research and data of theirs has remained a mystery for so long?

I think tennis is behind other sports in terms of innovating and I think it should continue developing round robins. The biggest sporting event in the world, World Cup, is four team round robin and that is probably, as Matt Cronin says, the best way to proceed.

Tennis is not football. What works for one sport does not necessarily work for others, and I think more foresight on such issues is required rather than reckless experimentation. Which this current RR fiasco has proven to be, the problems so far have not just been in Las Vegas.

shotgun
03-03-2007, 09:32 PM
Come on guys, even if you loathe the RR format (like myself), you have to admit the thread starter is entitled to his own opinion, and has the right to express it as long as it remains respectful. No need to bash him. Remember that every unanimity is ignorant. ;)

Shrinking Violet
03-03-2007, 10:12 PM
I just think tennis worked just fine forever with a knockout competition and now we have the ridiculous idea that you 'hey, you lost a match? Never mind - you can still win the tournament'.

It's lousy - there's nothing there to like. The sooner it goes, the better.

David Kenzie
03-03-2007, 11:18 PM
If you want to see the top players more, just have them play an exhibition before their first round match.

Round robin is totally unfair because it gives importance to the number of games and sets won. In tennis only the result must count, period.

DhammaTiger
03-03-2007, 11:32 PM
Even though I am opposed to the R.R system. I am shocked at the way some posters have attacked the thread starter. nrota, is entitled to her opinion whether anyone likes it or not. If one cannot argue logically or rationally to persuade her to change her opinion, I see no reason why anyone should call her names or ask for the thread to be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their preferences, even if those preferences are in a minority. Shame on all those who try to abuse and browbeat any poster, just because they don't like that poster's opinion.

Metis
03-03-2007, 11:46 PM
I simply adore round robins:

http://www.wingspanbirdtours.com/images/robin.jpg

:)

savesthedizzle
03-04-2007, 12:49 AM
I simply adore round robins:

http://www.wingspanbirdtours.com/images/robin.jpg

:)

:worship:

NYCtennisfan
03-04-2007, 05:03 AM
I won't be satisfied until all the slams are RR as well. Long live RR!!! ;)

nrota
03-04-2007, 08:54 PM
Hi JayJay
I think there is something really cool about following a players career from as early as possible and seeing that player develop bit by bit, at one stage it might be a Challenger title, then it's making the main draw of an ATP event through qualifying, then getting the 1st ATP Tour win, making the 1st Masters, getting the 1st title, beating the 1st top 10 or 20 player and so on...
I agree with you. I love reading Sports Illustrated because Iím essentially reading ongoing biographies of the players, in fact I started an ongoing serial biography of Benjamin Becker earlier this week, http://mvn.com/tennis/2007/03/01/benni-dresses-up-as-boris-becker.
RR makes that process a little harder (when it is already hard) and more convoluted (where it need not be). Korolev beat James Blake, a good win over a top 10er. But for example, had JMDP not retired and Blake had beaten him by the required scoreline, Korolev would have been out and that landmark win ends up meaning not as much as it would ordinarily do in a KO phase.
I donít have a problem with making it harder for Korolev and despite the huge screwup with Blakeís match, round robin did its job because Blake would have been gone after his first match if it had been single elimination. Round robin allowed the tournament to keep its top seed and main draw around for a second match and tennis needs that because sports marketing is all about marketing its stars.
But you can't manufacture a rivalry. Actually you can, but then Tennis would be WWF/WWE and I'm unwilling to accept such manufactured situations unless Trish Stratus or Stephanie McMahon are umpiring.

RR doesn't do anything for rivalries, does it? I don't see the connection, maybe you can expand on that?
If top players get two opportunities to get to the quarterfinals instead of one, they should get there more often and we should see more matches between top players which should result in more meetings between the top players.
Andy Murray and Andy Roddick met for the second week in a row last week and that was important for Andy Roddick because he would lose the psychological edge if he lost to Murray two weeks in a row. Granted, neither of those tournament was a round robin but it happens so seldom that we need to make changes so it will happen more often.

As I said before, thereís a second part to this: there are too many tournaments at the same time in different parts of the world and I think de Villiers will find it much easier to change the format than take tournaments away from tournament directors, but I think both changes should be made because stars are so important for marketing.
just because other sports have other variations is no reason to implement that kind of matchplay into tennis. Different sports have different audiences, with various nuances, some respect the history of the game more than others, some have traditions or values that are the core of its sport.

I think youíve hit on something important here. What is at the core of tennis? I would view round robin as a variation just as match play is a variation in golf. A variation already used in the year end Masters Cup. But here again is a problem with the implementation: not only didnít the ATP test round robins in Challengers as one of the menstennisforums members suggested, but they started by with thirteen (now fourteen) of them in the first year. Way too many though it does suggest that tournament directors agree that it can work.

Bottom line for me: I follow and write about tennis and itís not in good shape at the moment for a number of different reasons. Round robin addresses some of those concerns because it allows tournaments to market players better and it makes it more likely that top players will meet more often. The implementation has been disastrous so far but the format is a good step in the right direction.

Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

jayjay
03-05-2007, 12:20 AM
[QUOTE=nrota;4979186]
I donít have a problem with making it harder for Korolev and despite the huge screwup with Blakeís match, round robin did its job because Blake would have been gone after his first match if it had been single elimination. Round robin allowed the tournament to keep its top seed and main draw around for a second match and tennis needs that because sports marketing is all about marketing its stars.

I couldn't disagree more with these sentiments. I don't remember the great players of the past needing extra chances or free passes to create rivalries or uphold their rankings and seeding status.

If top players get two opportunities to get to the quarterfinals instead of one, they should get there more often and we should see more matches between top players which should result in more meetings between the top players.

Why not give them three chances or four? Why even have tournaments where the anyone outside the top 10 can enter? You see what I'm saying, I'm sure.

Andy Murray and Andy Roddick met for the second week in a row last week and that was important for Andy Roddick because he would lose the psychological edge if he lost to Murray two weeks in a row. Granted, neither of those tournament was a round robin but it happens so seldom that we need to make changes so it will happen more often.

And why do we need Murray/Roddick matches week after week? Just to see Andy talk to himself more about what he shouldn't be doing but yet continually does?

Tennis is about more than just the top players, more than the top 20 can play good tennis and there are some players right now with relatively low rankings who used to be at the top of the game.

As I said before, thereís a second part to this: there are too many tournaments at the same time in different parts of the world and I think de Villiers will find it much easier to change the format than take tournaments away from tournament directors, but I think both changes should be made because stars are so important for marketing.

I don't disagree with you about too many tournaments in too many places, but I disagree totally that RR is a solution to this.

Bottom line for me: I follow and write about tennis and itís not in good shape at the moment for a number of different reasons.

Likewise, you can see my counter on Sportingo very soon, or you can find it here also. (http://sportsmagician.blogspot.com/)

Sunset of Age
03-05-2007, 12:28 AM
Round robin allowed the tournament to keep its top seed and main draw around for a second match and tennis needs that because sports marketing is all about marketing its stars.

This is a perfect illustration why I think RR is a terrible idea.
We're not talking about 'stars' and 'marketing' in tennis (at least not in the first place, I hope) - we're talking about SPORT.
And the prinicpal idea behind sport is that the BEST should win, not the one that draws in the most money, fans, and attention. The BEST - that's the guy who wins the matches.
Or would you rather see a sort-of circus-act tour, where every final is already booked to play (for example) Fed/Nadal because they draw in the most money? I surely hope not. It would not only be an insult to tennis fans, but even more to the players themselves! :rolleyes:

However much I disagree, I have to say that I totally respect your opinion, BTW. It's really quite courageous of you to post an opinion here which not many will share! :yeah:

sondraj06
03-05-2007, 12:42 AM
I have to say this is why I like RR, probably the only reason. I can understand people pointing out problems with RR, i'm sure there are reasons, although I fail to really see them as yet. Or people not liking it because it's not easily understandable or even because like fed, they just don't want change in tennis. Because they think it's fine as it has always been, traditionalists.

But what I don't get is people saying that players get more chances as if it's a negative thing. If you look at round robin like you would other sports, it's not different. Were the Miami heat not deservant of their NBA title because they played the best of 7 to get it, I'm confused. If anything It proves who is really the best not who is just better for that day.

It takes away the, I lost because, well my head just wasn't in it for this game. Or the, me and my girlfriend got into it just before the match so.

If Nadal played Youzny in one match and youzny beat him he should be able to beat him 2 more times. Because he is better not just because he is better that day. It's like a more immediate h2h results for ya.

Jlee
03-05-2007, 12:50 AM
I have to say this why I like RR, probably the only reason. I can understand people pointin out problems with RR i'm sure they are there althoug I fail to really see them as yet.

You don't see problems with what happened in Las Vegas or Buenos Aires?

Or people not liking it because it's not easily understandable

Isn't RR supposed to attract fans? How can it if it's not easily understood and there are millions of technicalities?


or even becaue like fed they just don't wan't change in tennis, they think it's fine as it has always bee. Tradinitonlists, But what I don't get is people saying that you get more chances as a negative thing. If you look at round robin like you would other sports it's not different. Were the Miami heat not deservant of their NBA title because they played the best of 7 to get it, I'm confused. If anything It proves who is really the best not, who is just better for that day.

It takes away the I lost because well my head just wasn't in it for this game. Or the me and my girlfrined got into it just before the match so.

If Nadal played Youzny in one match and youzny beat him he should be able to beat him 2 more times, because he is better not just because he is better that day. It's like a more immediate h2h results for ya.

For me, it's not about being a traditionalist at all. I'm for hawk eye. But tennis isn't about who's better overall when the players step out onto the court on any given day, it's about who brought it at that particular moment. If all we cared about was who was the best we would just give Federer the trophies from the beginning. ;)

What's so impressive about Federer is that he so rarely loses. Even if someone is playing well on a given day and he isn't, he still gets through the matches usually. I'd like to continue to see him have to encounter that challenge, though.

And comparing tennis to other sports is exteremly difficult in my opinion. It's unique because of its single loss elimination format. That's tennis.

Neumann
03-05-2007, 01:04 AM
I love the round robins in team sports. In football, I remember the "European Champions League" before it became the Champions League. All knock out rounds, which wasn't too bad. But I thoroughly enjoy it more now, with the groups, and it actually seems more fair. One match in which the ref or injuries screw you up, and with the group system you still have the chance to show what you are worth it. The same applies to the World cup.
Dead games are a problem though, sometimes.

In an individual sport like tennis more problems show up, mainly for retirements. Yet, with better worked out rules, getting rid of 3 player groups, and a few tweaks, it could be a good addition to the sport. By no means I would like to see in every tournament, but the (supposed) increased revenue, ease of scheduling and possibility of having more chances of following your players, seem reasons enough to me to keep trying it.

Of course, no bending of the rules, please ATP.

sondraj06
03-05-2007, 02:35 AM
You don't see problems with what happened in Las Vegas or Buenos Aires?



Isn't RR supposed to attract fans? How can it if it's not easily understood and there are millions of technicalities?



For me, it's not about being a traditionalist at all. I'm for hawk eye. But tennis isn't about who's better overall when the players step out onto the court on any given day, it's about who brought it at that particular moment. If all we cared about was who was the best we would just give Federer the trophies from the beginning. ;)

What's so impressive about Federer is that he so rarely loses. Even if someone is playing well on a given day and he isn't, he still gets through the matches usually. I'd like to continue to see him have to encounter that challenge, though.

And comparing tennis to other sports is exteremly difficult in my opinion. It's unique because of its single loss elimination format. That's tennis.

-BOLD-Problems that can be fixed. That doesn't spell the end of RR.

Or we could just say Fed has yet to have an off day :lol:

And RR will be his downfall :devil:

Jlee
03-05-2007, 02:55 AM
-BOLD-Problems that can be fixed. That doesn't spell the end of RR.

Or we could just say Fed has yet to have an off day :lol:

And RR will be his downfall :devil:

Yes, but still problems ;)

LOL. I've seen a few.

How do you figure?! :lol:

L.R
03-05-2007, 04:18 AM
I went to take a look at how many signatures this could get... 13 by now ...
then I read those 13... and 7 actually states stuff like "RR sucks get rid of it" ...

please guys... if as I do and the majority of people does, you think that RR is the worst idea ever ... JUST DO NOT SIGN THIS ONE !!
GO SIGN THE OTHER !! :D

Federer&Hingis
03-05-2007, 05:01 AM
What a stupid thread.

RR formats are destroying tennis.

Action Jackson
03-05-2007, 05:07 AM
sondraj, you are hilarious.

Action Jackson
03-05-2007, 05:10 AM
Bottom line for me: I follow and write about tennis and itís not in good shape at the moment for a number of different reasons. Round robin addresses some of those concerns because it allows tournaments to market players better and it makes it more likely that top players will meet more often. The implementation has been disastrous so far but the format is a good step in the right direction.

So in other words tennis is not good in the US so this means it's struggling elsewhere? This is pretty much what it comes across to me.

If you love seeing the top players so much they can have a tour just for the top 16 and play RR events all the time amongst themselves and have a Super League with a best of 7 playoffs.

johnnylad
03-05-2007, 11:42 AM
Seems to me that Nrota or whoever started this thread doesn't appreciate real tennis. Probably only watches GrandSlams, and hadn't heard of players like Federer/Nadal etc until they won a grand slam.

We enjoy tennis for the whole package. Futures up to Grand Slams, enjoys watching people improve and compete.

Can't believe your comments about qualifiers. How do you expect the up and coming players to ever get anywhere.

By your logic we'll still have Federer and Nalad playing each other in their 50's cos no one else is allowed to play in the tournaments.

You're entitle to your opinions but PLEASE think them through first.

gam_jonte
03-05-2007, 04:57 PM
I'm a tabletennis player and in this sport we have both a form of RR and elimination matches. The difference between the two is that the system of only having three players in one RR groupe makes it much easier for higher ranked players to advance. But if you but say 5-6 players in one groupe it becomes much harder and therefore gives every player a greater chance to advance. Of course you can have bad luck in your RR draw but the same can be said in E. matches.

R.Federer
03-05-2007, 10:16 PM
I think tennis is behind other sports in terms of innovating and I think it should continue developing round robins. The biggest sporting event in the world, World Cup, is four team round robin and that is probably, as Matt Cronin says, the best way to proceed.

Thanks, Nina
www.tennisdiary.com (http://www.tennisdiary.com)

There have to be ways to innovate that don't tamper with the integrity of players. Can you devise a system within RR where there are no incentives for players to feign injury or withdrawal in order to see a disliked competitor (who is in direct competition for points) not go through?

Also,comparisons with other sports are odious. World Cup has had RR for a while, and it might suit the depth in FIFA to have robins. Maybe the better question is-- why aren't they "innovating" and going to a knockout series. Apart from other reasons, robins will work better there because one person's desire to block someone else from going through is going to have a negligible impact on tanking a match.