Players retiring - Should SRs count or not? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Players retiring - Should SRs count or not?

adee-gee
04-14-2007, 05:31 PM
We previously had a poll to decide whether matches where someone retiring should count, and the results showed that most people were in favour of them counting. However, we have run into some problemswith regards to SRs in retired matches. Both rules we have used have had their problems, as seen below. So it's only fair to go with what the majority of TT players would see as "the lesser of 2 evils".

Option A - SRs do not count

This was the original rule, although it ran into problems in Acapulco when TT player A needed 'X' to win 2-0, and TT Player B needed 'X' to win 2-1. 'X' was leading by a set and 5-3, when his opponent retired. TT Player A then lost the match because of this, whereas he would've won if the injured opponent had completed one more game. Due to this, we changed the rule (to option B).

Option B - SRs do count

This rule was introduced, but has caused recent controversy in Valencia. Rules were changed so that if more than 1 set had been played, the player retiring forfeited all remaining sets. However, in Valencia, TT Team A needed player 'X' to win 2-1, and TT Team B needed player 'X' to win 2-0. Player 'X' led 6-4 *1-0 when his opponent retired. Under the old rules, TT Team A would have won the match, as this SR would have been void. Under the new rules, TT Team B claimed victory as player 'X' was awarded a 2-0 victory.

I hope these explanations are ok, please vote for your preferred option. The poll will be open for 1 week, and whichever option is more popular will be implemented after Monte Carlo. Thanks :wavey:

Enjoy Incubus
04-14-2007, 07:32 PM
I vote for option B. If the match counts, then SR must count.

Spadea TT
04-14-2007, 09:11 PM
I voted A :D

Blue Heart24
04-14-2007, 09:32 PM
Option A

GlennMirnyi
04-14-2007, 09:35 PM
I'd like to know what people would think if a 1/6 1/6 0/5 ret match counted as 3 sets to 2. :lol:

Melvins
04-14-2007, 10:29 PM
B, if the retire player hasn't in advantage.

Chris 84
04-14-2007, 10:34 PM
I don't think the matches should count at all, but since they do, I think set ratio must count as well :shrug:

Björki
04-14-2007, 10:57 PM
A :p

Melvins
04-14-2007, 11:26 PM
B, if the retire player hasn't in advantage.

Ok, I think it's stupid count set ratios in a retire match.:lol:

Labamba
04-14-2007, 11:34 PM
I'd like to know what people would think if a 1/6 1/6 0/5 ret match counted as 3 sets to 2. :lol:

:lol:

but would you agree if you would lose the TT Wimby final, because Rafa retired at 1-6 1-6 0-5* :p

Labamba
04-14-2007, 11:37 PM
B

because I don't like it when people pray for somebody to retire and I think it's much more horrible to lose like that then the other way around...

Foosimoo
04-14-2007, 11:58 PM
Option A :shrug: :lol:

MissPovaFan
04-15-2007, 12:10 AM
I don't think a SR should count if a player retires unless the retirement happens during the final set - then I feel it should count.

However I do feel a match should count as long as one point of the match is played. Basically sometimes when I make my picks I do so with the prediction fo who might or might not retire - for example if Coria plays Sweeting I might go for Sweeting due to the high chance of a retirement.

Peta Pan
04-15-2007, 02:14 AM
A.

The match should still count, but not the SR. SR should just be forfeited for that match and go to the next SR to decide the match... and if it's SR5 then it goes to PTS.

GustavoM_Fan
04-15-2007, 02:30 AM
Is not an easy decision, but imagine you have Player A 2-0 and he wins 6-4 4-0 ret. I think it should be counted.

But 6-4 1-0 ret... I think not..... :rolleyes:

savesthedizzle
04-15-2007, 03:15 AM
I think it's the sort of situation where it should be counted if the winning player was up a break in the set which wasn't completed because then a player could retire just because he thought the match was hopeless.

But if the set was even, then not. I don't know. It's difficult and I can see why both sides are upset.

Taz Warrior
04-15-2007, 09:58 AM
I vote A as we shouldn't guess what would have happened if the match had finished without a retirement. Just because someone's a set and a break up doesn't mean he would have gone on to win the match :shrug:

Homo_Esperanto
04-15-2007, 11:33 AM
I vote A as we shouldn't guess what would have happened if the match had finished without a retirement. Just because someone's a set and a break up doesn't mean he would have gone on to win the match :shrug:


I totally agree to Gavin; The best way is to have no speculations at all at what could have happened.

keqtqiadv
04-15-2007, 02:17 PM
when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent :p

savesthedizzle
04-15-2007, 02:27 PM
when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent :p

That is true, and I do agree with that. I mean if we are counting the match, then the SR should count.

If a match is counted when a player wins 3-6 4-6 0-4 ret, the only possible way for him to have won that match was to come back and win the next three sets. The ratio would HAVE to have been 3:2. And if we are counting him as the winner we should count the ratio he would have won by. :shrug:

My opinion last night was more of an attempt to be in the middle and compromise, but given more thought, I really do support counting the SR.

Taz Warrior
04-15-2007, 02:35 PM
when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent :p
That's true and that's why we count the winner of retired matches but the SR is irrelevant as a player hasn't won by 2 sets to love if his opponent retires after only one full set has been completed :p

Renaud
04-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Tippers should plan the retirements :

For exemple : Youznhy: 1/0 ret :p

FiBeR
04-16-2007, 06:39 PM
depends on the match

if the trail is clear.. 64 53 for e.g. :rolleyes: it should be counted

if it is 46 64 11.. it should be counted.. (best of 3..of course.. because 3 sets are already played)

if is is 6-6* .. or let me say..4-1* .. no.. only clearly decided matches.. (already in the 3rd set..or 5th set.. and/or serving for the match or set up break up...)

Action Jackson
04-17-2007, 07:10 AM
I see both sides of this, the main problem is when the retirement takes place in the match.

The match result should count of course, but not the SR, it should go to the next one, then what happens if that's a retirement as well.

adee-gee
04-19-2007, 11:07 PM
*bump*

Just a couple of days left to vote ;)

Tankman
04-20-2007, 03:12 PM
Option A

SRs shouldn't count because the last set isn't finished. It's as simple as that in my opinion. Whether a player is up or down 1-0 or 5-0, you can't say for sure that they were going to win or lose.

It'd be much too hard to try and call the set based on the scoreline, or who was winning, because it just raises too many questions and makes things way too complicated and subjective.

For the same sorts of reasons, I'm also against counting retired matches altogether, but that's a battle I doubt I'd win...

ZackBusner
04-20-2007, 08:56 PM
Just to make sure: I suppose it is common sense that matches that ended with one player resigning still should count for SR decision if one TT player picked the winner and the opponent didn't ? (I can imagine that some people will start a discussion about this what that situation occurs, saying: "Read the new rule: This match doesn't count for SR" :p)

GustavoM_Fan
04-20-2007, 11:06 PM
I think in case of retirement, SR`s should count when the winner of the match is playing final set and is leading by more than 3 games......

Per ex. (RG 2007 results )

Marcaccio d. Federer 6-0 6-0 2-0 ret. not counted

Marcaccio d. Kohlschreiber 6-0 6-0 3-0 ret. counted (3-0)

Marcaccio d. El Aynaoui 6-7 7-5 6-4 1-6 5-2 ret.counted (3-2)

Marcaccio d. Djokovic 4-6 6-4 6-2 4-1 ret. counted (3-1)

Marcaccio d. Coria 4-6 7-6 4-6 0-5 ret. not counted

.etc..... (Gustavo cant end the matchs properly :lol:)

What do you think???

Labamba
04-20-2007, 11:07 PM
Just to make sure: I suppose it is common sense that matches that ended with one player resigning still should count for SR decision if one TT player picked the winner and the opponent didn't ? (I can imagine that some people will start a discussion about this what that situation occurs, saying: "Read the new rule: This match doesn't count for SR" :p)

That's the invisible option C :p

Labamba
04-21-2007, 07:49 PM
The poll is now closed, option A wins and it should be used in all tournaments from this point on.

Now the problem is, what should we do about this question:

Just to make sure: I suppose it is common sense that matches that ended with one player resigning still should count for SR decision if one TT player picked the winner and the opponent didn't ? (I can imagine that some people will start a discussion about this what that situation occurs, saying: "Read the new rule: This match doesn't count for SR" :p)

Taz Warrior
04-21-2007, 08:19 PM
The poll is now closed, option A wins and it should be used in all tournaments from this point on.

Now the problem is, what should we do about this question:


Just to make sure: I suppose it is common sense that matches that ended with one player resigning still should count for SR decision if one TT player picked the winner and the opponent didn't ?

I think we should count them in this situation as we count the winner of retired matches.

Blue Heart24
04-21-2007, 08:22 PM
I think we should count them in this situation as we count the winner of retired matches.

I agree.

savesthedizzle
04-22-2007, 02:41 AM
Just to make sure: I suppose it is common sense that matches that ended with one player resigning still should count for SR decision if one TT player picked the winner and the opponent didn't ? (I can imagine that some people will start a discussion about this what that situation occurs, saying: "Read the new rule: This match doesn't count for SR" :p)

I think that should still count, of course.

ExcaliburII
04-24-2007, 05:02 AM
I think in case of retirement, SR`s should count when the winner of the match is playing final set and is leading by more than 3 games......

Per ex. (RG 2007 results )

Marcaccio d. Federer 6-0 6-0 2-0 ret. not counted

Marcaccio d. Kohlschreiber 6-0 6-0 3-0 ret. counted (3-0)

Marcaccio d. El Aynaoui 6-7 7-5 6-4 1-6 5-2 ret.counted (3-2)

Marcaccio d. Djokovic 4-6 6-4 6-2 4-1 ret. counted (3-1)

Marcaccio d. Coria 4-6 7-6 4-6 0-5 ret. not counted

.etc..... (Gustavo cant end the matchs properly :lol:)

What do you think???

Great Idea :yeah:

No one commented on this idea? :( :ras:

Labamba
04-24-2007, 07:01 AM
Great Idea :yeah:

No one commented on this idea? :( :ras:

We just voted for a new rule, that doesn't count SR's when a retirement happens. This came too late, we can revisit the matter during the off-season and evaluate if we need to make further changes.

Labamba
04-24-2007, 07:03 AM
I think we should count them in this situation as we count the winner of retired matches.

Yes, I think so too. Atleast for now, we should keep counting them as before.

belco
05-01-2007, 09:54 AM
im too late to vote but i would have picked option A