Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Tennis is all about matchups, and it doesn't seem right that matchups should decide that much of a tournament. Yes it makes sense for the first part of the tournament to be about seeds going up against lower ranked opponents. But I believe the final four should be a group stage where each player has to have three matches and the person with best result should be crowned champion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
No, the number of participants would be too small for it to be fair. Match-ups would still play a huge role, and some players would have no motivation if, for example, they lost their first two matches.

I would like to see more round robin tennis, it is a fairer system, but you can't do it for grand slams. Do it with the top 10 or 20 over the course of a year and I think you've got something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosGros

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,664 Posts
Grand slams are tourneys where the player needs to win 7 matches in a row to get the title. Any more matches and it goes extreme, any more players than 7 and it will be too exhausting.
It is what it is, was invented a long time ago, but still working very well.

OP should take a leaf of some trolls' and older posters' book: just retire here for the sake of sanity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
No way. RR format only works at the beginning of a tournament. Not at the end.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,534 Posts
Tennis is all about matchups, and it doesn't seem right that matchups should decide that much of a tournament. Yes it makes sense for the first part of the tournament to be about seeds going up against lower ranked opponents. But I believe the final four should be a group stage where each player has to have three matches and the person with best result should be crowned champion
Too tricky to do. The order would substantially matter.

Take 2013 USO for example. Djokovic played a 5 setter with Wawrinka in one SF, Nadal played Gasquet and won in straight sets. The one who played the marathon first would technically be at a disadvantage for the subsequent match(es).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
129 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Too tricky to do. The order would substantially matter.

Take 2013 USO for example. Djokovic played a 5 setter with Wawrinka in one SF, Nadal played Gasquet and won in straight sets. The one who played the marathon first would technically be at a disadvantage for the subsequent match(es).
Good point. I guess then you could make it so top seed goes against bottom seed first
So Djokovic would go against Gasquet and Nadal vs Wawrinka for first match
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
No, it would wash out the excitment of those big matches and increase even more the speculations on results from the other players playing in the draw.

Besides, it would make the already played and won slams irrelevant to some extent, or better, for the detractors of the new rules, it would make the new slams less relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68,049 Posts
Lol no. It’s enough with olympics and bronze medal match
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top