In defense of the retirement rule [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

In defense of the retirement rule

Driftwood
03-05-2007, 05:05 AM
Ok I must be somewhat mad making my first post in these boards on such a controversial topic (must say I have been reading these boards for over a month now and have certainly enjoyed the time here) but I have read some 50 pages of comments on people's opinoins on what has transpired in Las Vegas post Blake - Del Potro and have not seen anyone come to the defense of the retirement rule and why it is the way it is (this is the very reason why I finally decided to become a member - I apologise in advance if subsequently someone has posted something similar to the below).

One poster made numerous remarks on how it doesn't make sense that the completed match is recorded for the non-retiring player (Blake in this case) but not for the retiring player. There are obvious reasons for this. Suppose for example Del Potro decided to retire very early in the match after only a couple of games (2-0 or so). With a completed match attributed to him in this case he would have advanced through the group as each would have 1 win but he would have had the highest set and game winning percentages as the match would have only added 2 additional games to the significantly larger number he played against Korolev so it would not significantly adversely affect his percentages.

Now I know people don't like the current rule as while no-one blamed Del Potro, the opportunity for duplicity presenting itself was seen as unsatisfactory but under the current rules it could only happen with collusion while in a completed match where attributed to the retiree no collusion even would be necessary - benefits would directly fall upon the retiree. Despite the unfortunate circumstances we attach when someone retires, it does make sense that a retiree doesn't advance.

So what is the alternative, scaling accordingly? This doesn't work either for then Del Potro could have won the first game and retired. Only other solution is to give all remaining games to the non-retiring player. But that begs the question, do we really want a player who gets smoked in a first group match who wins their second match with an early retirement say 2-0 to translate to a 6-0 6-0 win and pretty much guarantee the tiebreaking method in their favour? That doesn't make any sense either.

I know the above isn't what happened in the Blake match and yes he was quite close to winning the match without a retirment but due to the above then you would have to then say a certain amount of games would have to be played to use one tie-breaking method over an other, but then once again that still empowers the person thinking about retirement on when to do it and who would benefit from his gesture.

Obviously the clear problem here is the round robin system (which I think almost everyone can at least agree on now).

Driftwood
03-06-2007, 06:20 AM
97 views and no response, was my post too long?

DrJules
03-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Obviously the clear problem here is the round robin system (which I think almost everyone can at least agree on now).

It continues to amaze me that everybody did not realise all the problems associated with RR long ago.

After all the year end master had the following problems:

1) Players losing a match and winning (Nalbandian y.e. 2005 and there have been others);
2) Players losing matches to have a favourable draw (too many to mention);
3) Players showing questionable commitment in dead matches (too many to mention);
4) In reflection of retirements the year end master which should have informed everbody was 2005 plus other before. When a player retires it almost makes qualification for the replacement impossible.

stebs
03-06-2007, 06:49 AM
It continues to amaze me that everybody did not realise all the problems associated with RR long ago.

After all the year end master had the following problems:

1) Players losing a match and winning (Nalbandian y.e. 2005 and there have been others);
2) Players losing matches to have a favourable draw (too many to mention);
3) Players showing questionable commitment in dead matches (too many to mention);
4) In reflection of retirements the year end master which should have informed everbody was 2005 plus other before. When a player retires it almost makes qualification for the replacement impossible.

I agree other than with this one. The YEC format, for the most part, works fine. It has been like that for a long time and it is a nice contrast, it's in place so that it is more likely that many of the top players play against each other and it works fairly well. That you can lose a match and win a tournament was not overlooked in the TMC it is simply the way it is. I guess the tennis world decided that being able to win 4/5 matches against top class opposition was enough.

As for the others. :yeah:

Action Jackson
03-06-2007, 08:05 AM
It continues to amaze me that everybody did not realise all the problems associated with RR long ago.

After all the year end master had the following problems:

1) Players losing a match and winning (Nalbandian y.e. 2005 and there have been others);
2) Players losing matches to have a favourable draw (too many to mention);
3) Players showing questionable commitment in dead matches (too many to mention);
4) In reflection of retirements the year end master which should have informed everbody was 2005 plus other before. When a player retires it almost makes qualification for the replacement impossible.

Said everything that needed to be said with this post. I remember Lendl tanking a match to get a better draw in the semis of the TMC, but there are other examples.

If the rule didn't exist, then del Potro could have played 1 game and then retired and that would have made it even more interesting if you know what I mean.

mecir72
03-06-2007, 08:36 AM
In TMC groups consist of four players which is much better than groups of three IMHO.

oz_boz
03-06-2007, 09:38 AM
I guess the tennis world decided that being able to win 4/5 matches against top class opposition was enough.

You can win the YEC with 3 wins on 5 matches, although you have to have some luck. Sooner or later that will happen.

I'm still in favour of the RR of TMC though. But the tanking and losing for better opponents in SF makes it clear that it shouldn't be used all year around, enough of it once a year.