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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
if the trail is clear.. 64 53 for e.g. 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...)
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...
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" )
im too late to vote but i would have picked option A
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!