[savesthedizzle]

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.

[Gavnich77]

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

[Homo_Esperanto]

Originally Posted by Gavnich77

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

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

[keqtqiadv]

when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent

[savesthedizzle]

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent

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.

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.

[Gavnich77]

Originally Posted by keqtqiadv

when a player retires, he's giving the rest of the match to his opponent

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

[Renaud]

Tippers should plan the retirements :

For exemple : Youznhy: 1/0 ret

[FiBeR]

depends on the match

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...)

[Action Jackson]

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]

*bump*

Just a couple of days left to vote

[Tankman]

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]

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" )

[GustavoM_Fan]

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 )

What do you think???

[Labamba]

Originally Posted by ZackBusner

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" )

That's the invisible option C

[Labamba]

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:

Originally Posted by ZackBusner

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" )