Round Robin is good for tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Round Robin is good for tennis

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-10-2007, 03:41 AM
If the wrinkes are ironed out and the rules enforced, rr can be successful.

Most normal fans at tournaments would rather see a star player twice than once. I know if I paid $50, I would rather see Roddick or some star player play than a journeyman.

Change and Evolution is good.

Make tennis mainstream and we see more matches on tv. Players earn more which attracts better and more athletes to the sports.

Break the above logic.

sondraj06
03-10-2007, 04:05 AM
Ha I get that, before I didn't really get why people were saying that it wouldn't benefit the fans, as simple as that concept is, yeah I have my moments. But the fans would benefit from seeing their fav player more than once. Everybody should at least like that.

GlennMirnyi
03-10-2007, 05:02 AM
Weren't you going to leave? I see that you have no spine to back your words. :lol: Expected loser behaviour.

Why are you talking to yourself, by the way?

FaceyFacem
03-10-2007, 05:57 AM
-If the wrinkes are ironed out and the rules enforced, rr can be successful.

the rules enforced as were made korolev advance, which seemed odd to most everyone, and eliminated ferrero for doing almost nothing wrong, except his opponent w/d. the rules being enforced wouldn't save the success

-Most normal fans at tournaments would rather see a star player twice than once. I know if I paid $50, I would rather see Roddick or some star player play than a journeyman.

who do you consider a normal fan? most serious tennis fans would prefer to see a LIVE match, not one where someone needs to win at least 3 games, then the rest is an exhibition, or a match that doesn't count at all (see Buenos Aires), and i'm not sure what tournament costs $50 for an early round ticket, given that the US Open doesn't cost that much for the first few days. perhaps the not serious tennis fans would prefer it, but this doesn't effect the TV rounds for small events anyway, since those are only weekends, if even... no average tv viewer would get more top tennis exposure, and more dedicated fans are probably more indifferent, or respectful of a journeyman having a good week

Change and Evolution is good.
this isn't evolution, evolution is a natural, slow change, this is a sudden experimental change... change isn't necessarily good, a genetic defect is a change, and most people would say cyclops kittens and pigs with 3 eyes and 2 snouts are not good, well thought out and agreed upon change CAN be a good thing, but vast generalizations are overly dangerous

-Make tennis mainstream and we see more matches on tv. Players earn more which attracts better and more athletes to the sports.

players are continuing to make more anyway, tennis can be made more mainstream in ways other than RR, and the negative publicity caused by Las Vegas probably didn't help. the problem with tennis and tv has been largely that it isn't easy to schedule (due to a long order of play and/or variable length of match), as well as (in american terms) there aren't as many national stars... meanwhile, tennis is receiving a giant boost in international coverage, and has been growing steadily before the RR experiment began


-Break the above logic.

there's my best

Kalliopeia
03-10-2007, 11:59 AM
Ha I get that, before I didn't really get why people were saying that it wouldn't benefit the fans, as simple as that concept is, yeah I have my moments. But the fans would benefit from seeing their fav player more than once. Everybody should at least like that.

I'll see my favorite players more than once if they win. If they don't, they don't deserve to go through. Every tennis fan understands that, it's the nature of the game and it works just fine that way.

Besides, on US tv at least, you're pretty much screwed unless your favorite player is American anyway. So it's not helping me see my favorites more often.

RonE
03-10-2007, 01:06 PM
Poor R=FK- with the emergence of new clowns he feels threatened by the competition so he cut short his hiatus to give them some competition and ensure that he gets a high seeding for the arseclown contest.

Black Adam
03-10-2007, 01:08 PM
What happened to Ferrero with RR in Buenos Aires?

Peoples
03-10-2007, 01:09 PM
Change and Evolution is good.

How ironic from someone who hasn't evolved further from monkey stage :haha:

nobama
03-10-2007, 01:21 PM
Poor R=FK- with the emergence of new clowns he feels threatened by the competition so he cut short his hiatus to give them some competition and ensure that he gets a high seeding for the arseclown contest.He realizes with out a second chance Nadal won't win off clay anytime soon. :devil:

Horatio Caine
03-10-2007, 01:42 PM
Oh God, the prick is back :retard:

mtw
03-10-2007, 01:45 PM
Round Robin can be good for tennis too.

kindablue
03-10-2007, 01:50 PM
Rafa = Fed Killa! Back with a vengeance :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
03-10-2007, 02:12 PM
R=FK is sondraj

FaceyFacem
03-10-2007, 02:35 PM
What happened to Ferrero with RR in Buenos Aires?

i think it was lapentti, w/d before their match, so he had to play an LL, but since it was against an LL, it couldn't count in figuring the tiebreak situations, so since devilder def. ferrero earlier in the week, no matter what happened in the 3rd match devilder would advance, so ferrero threatened to not go on the court at all... essentially the match was a glorified exhibition, but eventually he played

Galathea
03-10-2007, 03:57 PM
What happened to Ferrero with RR in Buenos Aires?

Lapenti couldn't play due to injury (real one, not like Calleri or Acasuso, but not going there). Ferrero (who lost his first match) didn't have a chance BEFORE playing because he was going against a LL. So, after an hour of talking with him, the people from the tournament convinced him to play. But that was not the only "thing". The winner of the group went missing. nobody could find him, and for almost three hours, Ferrero was told that he was gong to play QF because the winner was nowhere around. Wich pissed him off more than playing for nothing. Ferrero's face was priceless during that time. After that, Devilder showed up and played, but Ferrero had two situations, not one. Imagine that for a proffesional former ATP 1, playing QF because the guy who won is not there, is almost an insult (and that was what Ferrero said). Not mention playing for nothing.

blank_frackis
03-10-2007, 08:53 PM
I do think that RR gets criticised a lot of the time for things which are circumstantial rather than inherent to the system itself. I mean the Blake situation wasn't a product of RR per se (though obviously that's the only system this could have happened in) it was a product of a rather silly rule as to what happens when a player retires through injury in a RR tournament. There are other solutions to this problem than the one used which could still be used in the RR format.

Likewise the problems with meaningless games could be addressed by a number of measures - making sure the groups are small, perhaps having different ranking points for placings in RR groups rather than just having different points for going through/not going through. I'm not convinced about RR yet, but I certainly think we need to judge it on the problems inherent to the concept and not on circumstantial problems with the rules as they are now - such as the Blake situation.

CyBorg
03-10-2007, 10:46 PM
You can't iron out wrinkles.

The fact of the matter is that players will advance out of the round robin for the stupidest of tiebreak reasons, while guys with perfectly reasonable 2-1 records will be going home.

The round robin makes no sense when so few games are played for its duration. If the round robin is 10 matches then you can actually create standings and argue about tie-breaks. Otherwise it is utter nonsense.