Mens Tennis Forums banner

Matches with retirement - Should SR's count or not?

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
One more poll this year, two options to vote for:

Option A - Set Ratio (SR) should not count

SR's will never count if there's a retirement in a match, no matter what the score is.

Option B - Set Ratio (SR) should count if the advancing player is +2 games up in a set which can decide the match

SR counted

best of 3

Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-6 2-0 ret. ---> counted (Nadal 2-1)
Nadal def. Federer 6-3 4-0 ret. ---> counted (Nadal 2-0)
Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 ret. ---> counted (Nadal 2-1)

best of 5

Tsonga 6-4 6-3 2-0 ret. (counted like Tsonga 3-0)
Tsonga 6-0 3-6 6-2 4-0 ret. (counted like Tsonga 3-1)
Tsonga 6-3 3-6 6-4 3-6 3-1 ret. (counted like Tsonga 3-2)

SR not counted

Nadal def. Federer 3-6 3-0 ret. ---> not counted
Nadal def. Federer 6-0 1-0 ret. ---> not counted
Nadal def. Federer 3-6 3-6 2-0 ret. ---> not counted
Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-6 3-6 2-0 ret. ---> not counted

Note: This poll is to determine if a match with retirement should count as SR. Only TT players are allowed to vote.
 

·
_._._._._._
Joined
·
72,524 Posts
I'm for option B (although I prefered +3 games).

It's too frustrating losing a match where a guy you need leeds 6-1 3-0 or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I'm for option B (although I prefered +3 games).

It's too frustrating losing a match where a guy you need leeds 6-1 3-0 or something.
Me too, it's a joke when a player retires while the other guy is serving for the match and the match is not counted as SR.

with option B the game would become more fair in my opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,929 Posts
I think option B is more fair but not in the way proposed here. Player B can also retire when being down 7-6 *5-4. In that way SR would still not count. Point is sometimes a break up means being a one game difference, sometimes a two game difference. If you take +3 same problem occurs..

But option A is even more ridiculous, so although it's not flawless i will take option B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,550 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I think option B is more fair but not in the way proposed here. Player B can also retire when being down 7-6 *5-4. In that way SR would still not count. Point is sometimes a break up means being a one game difference, sometimes a two game difference. If you take +3 same problem occurs..
the problem here was that in challengers (without livescores) you can't know if the player was a break up or not, that's why the +2 game difference
 

·
#freeviktor
Joined
·
93,849 Posts
the problem here was that in challengers (without livescores) you can't know if the player was a break up or not, that's why the +2 game difference
And because of that, I think it shouldn't be counted at all. Yes it's frustrating to not count a SR when they are leading 5-0 in the final set. But it's still going to be frustrating to people when it's 5-4, serving out the set.

So I vote, not count it at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,298 Posts
No, matches with retirement shouldn't count for the SRs.
You're already enough lucky to get 1 point because you have the good winner or unlucky if you haven't him. The score doesn't mean anything in such matches
I understand that's annoying when a player retires when his opponent serves for the match but that happens rarely and a player who leads by one set (or two for best of 5 matches) and one break up wouldn't win inevitably
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,168 Posts
Me too, it's a joke when a player retires while the other guy is serving for the match and the match is not counted as SR.

with option B the game would become more fair in my opinion
You just stole the words from my mouth.
Option B:yeah:
 

·
Miss Fabray
Joined
·
55,507 Posts
No :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,619 Posts
I dont understand why not...

imagine you need a player to win in 2 sets. if not lose because another SR.

your guy is 6-0 3-0 and the opponnent retire.. this match dont have to be counted for SR because the other guy retired??? :lol:

it have to be counted. remember this only will be used in the final sets...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,766 Posts
I dont understand why not...

imagine you need a player to win in 2 sets. if not lose because another SR.

your guy is 6-0 3-0 and the opponnent retire.. this match dont have to be counted for SR because the other guy retired??? :lol:

it have to be counted. remember this only will be used in the final sets...
I have to agree with you for once :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: adee-gee

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,874 Posts
me too..


YES
 

·
.
Joined
·
34,641 Posts
Simon def Serra 26 75 11 ret Adelaide RR
Santoro def Skoch 30 Chennai
Guccione def Nadal 65 Sydney
Ferrero def Hajek 30 ret AO
GGL def J Johansson 11 ret AO
Grosjean def C Rochus 62 41 ret AO
Fish def Arthurs 30 ret AO
Verdasco def Mathieu 67 46 66 ret AO
Massu def Roitman 06 76 ret Vina del Mar
T Johansson def Bracciali 63 10 ret Zagreb
Hartfield def Acasuso 63 ret BA RR
Gaudio def Horna 11 ret Acapulco
Volandri def Koubek 64 10 ret Valencia
Almagro def Volandri 63 10 ret Valencia
Berdych def Almagro 50 ret MC
Pashanski def Berlocq 40 ret Barcelona
Vanek def Marin 60 32 ret Barcelona
Andujar def Ferrero 21 ret Barcelona
Montanes def Massu 61 21 ret Casablanca
Devilder def Canas 46 21 ret Munich
Calleri def JMDP 75 10 ret Estoril
Gasquet def Mathieu 31 ret Estoril
Stepanek def Haas 63 32 ret Rome
Volandri def Muray 15 ret Hamburg
Andreev def Tursunov 62 10 ret Hamburg
Koubek def C Rochus 6-7 7-6 6-4 1-2 ret RG
Lapentti def Peya 6-1 6-4 2-1 ret RG
Youzhny def Hernych 0-0 ret RG
Eschauer def Sidorenko 6-3 3-6 6-3 5-4 ret RG
Roger-Vasselin def Daniel 61 41 ret RG
Montanes def Soderling 7-6(4) 4-1 ret RG
Baghdatis def Hajek 62 62 ret RG
Mathieu def Llodra 76 ret Queens
Nieminen def Gicquel 64 ret Halle
Vliegen def Santoro 63 11 ret s-Hertogenbosch
Roitman def Kohl 62 ret s-Hertogenbosch
Muller def Hernandez 62 67 43 ret Wimbledon
Mirnyi def Lu 63 64 21 ret Wimbledon
Nadal def Djokovic 36 61 41 ret Wimbledon
Wawrinka def Canas 67 62 10 ret Stuttgart
Stepanek def Bogdanovic 61 ret LA
Kunitsyn def Fish 64 ret Indianapolis
Hanescu def Tipsarevic 20 ret Umag
MVA def Davydenko 26 63 21 ret Sopot
Safin def Soderling 12 ret Montreal
Hewitt def Gasquet 61 32 ret Cincinnati
De Voest def Ascione 62 30 ret USO
Simon def Waske 64 61 ret USO
Grosjean def Goldstein 61 41 ret USO
Roddick def Acasuso 46 61 62 ret USO
Almagro def Horna 64 62 21 ret USO
Nadal def Tipsarevic 62 63 32 ret USO
Roddick def Berdych 76 20 ret USO
Tsonga def Bopanna 63 10 ret Beijing
Bolelli def Almagro 46 51 ret Bucharest
Korolev def Serra 46 65 ret Bucharest
Rochus def Kiefer 41 ret Mumbai
Llodra def Eschauer 41 ret Metz
T Johansson def JMDP 64 10 ret Stockholm
Vliegen def Troicki 63 22 ret Moscow
Berrer def Kohlschreiber 63 ret Moscow
JMDP def Russel 52 ret Basel
Youzhny def Kohlschreiber 64 ret St Petesburg

Hewitt def Tipsarevic 61 42 ret Adelaide RR
Minar def Srichaphan 62 30 Sydney
Gonzalez def JMDP 76 46 67 64 40 ret AO
Blake def JMDP 61 31 ret LV RR
Youzhny def Moya 62 31 ret MC
Stepanek def Monfils 60 20 ret MC
Kohlschreiber def Nalbandian 75 41 ret MC
Martin def Korolev 61 20 ret Estoril
Cipolla def Gabashvili 7-6(6) 6-3 5-2 ret RG
Stepanek def Sanguinetti 62 20 ret Queens
Lee def Moodie 62 30 ret LA
Pashanski def Starace 67 62 31 ret Sopot
Haas def Russel 63 30 ret Montreal
Monaco def Nadal 76 41 ret Cincinnati
Sela def JMDP 26 75 53 ret Tokyo
Sela def Pashanski 62 40 ret Tokyo


A :p I didn't know which option to choose so I searched for these matches hoping they'd help me :p I don't like the fact that matches like Eschauer def Sidorenko would not count as SRs and matches like Youzhny def Moya would.


And I agree with Jess here.

And because of that, I think it shouldn't be counted at all. Yes it's frustrating to not count a SR when they are leading 5-0 in the final set. But it's still going to be frustrating to people when it's 5-4, serving out the set.

So I vote, not count it at all.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top