PDA

View Full Version : A point for Round-Robin tourneys . . .


alienhamster
03-01-2007, 02:13 PM
I totally agree with most folks here about round-robin just being as confusing as heck to understand from a draw perspective.

But I have to say, it's added a pretty exciting dimension to what would otherwise be a fairly run-of-the-mill early round match at Las Vegas. Without spoiling anything, here's the deal:

Blake is playing Del Potro. In order for Blake to progress to the quarters, he has to win in straights without losing more than 5 games. Conversely, all Del Potro has to do is win 6 games in this match.

It definitely adds different pressures to the match. And every game is more tense to watch with this added pressure.

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 02:16 PM
Blake is playing Del Potro. In order for Blake to progress to the quarters, he has to win in straights without losing more than 5 games. Conversely, all Del Potro has to do is win 6 games in this match.
little precision : i think a 76 60, 75 61, 60 76, 61 75... would still be ok for james. ;)
(but right... a 6-n 6-m with n+m=6 would not be enough)

edberg505
03-01-2007, 02:17 PM
I totally agree with most folks here about round-robin just being as confusing as heck to understand from a draw perspective.

But I have to say, it's added a pretty exciting dimension to what would otherwise be a fairly run-of-the-mill early round match at Las Vegas. Without spoiling anything, here's the deal:

Blake is playing Del Potro. In order for Blake to progress to the quarters, he has to win in straights without losing more than 5 games. Conversely, all Del Potro has to do is win 6 games in this match.

It definitely adds different pressures to the match. And every game is more tense to watch with this added pressure.


Oh, to add to that Del Potro looks like he's about to default but if he does that then Blake is out because Korolev beat Blake in straights.

edberg505
03-01-2007, 02:23 PM
Oh man, this would be total crap if Del Potro retires.

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 02:25 PM
Oh, to add to that Del Potro looks like he's about to default but if he does that then Blake is out because Korolev beat Blake in straights.
oh... that would be tricky !
if a player defaults from the ultimate match of a group... is he really out of the equation ?
(because you can default from 1 RR match and still remain in the tournament... in theory !!!)

edberg505
03-01-2007, 02:27 PM
oh... that would be tricky !
if a player defaults from the ultimate match of a group... is he really out of the equation ?
(because you can default from 1 RR match and still remain in the tournament... in theory !!!)

edit, I don't want to give away the result, sorry.

alienhamster
03-01-2007, 02:28 PM
That is a RIDICULOUS rule. A retirement is a win! Period. It's different than a walkover.

Okay, add one point for round robin play, subtract negative 50 billion for this silly, silly rule.

DueSouth
03-01-2007, 02:29 PM
I dont like round robin!! I understand the whole thing that people get to see their fave players play more even if they lose the first match....but tournaments are about seeing who is the best - in round robin a player could lose won and win won of the round robin matches then get to the final and beat a player who won both round robin matches.....i dont think that is fair on the guy who did win every match. I think it should just be who is best on the day...so what if James Blake would have ended up going out on the first day...the other guy was better than him!

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 02:30 PM
here we are... we will know ! :rolleyes:

That is a RIDICULOUS rule. A retirement is a win! Period. It's different than a walkover.

Okay, add one point for round robin play, subtract negative 50 billion for this silly, silly rule.
eheh... this is insane !

and yes a retirement IS a win !
it's even a straight sets win... EVEN IF you lost a set !!!
(i mean it counts like a straight sets win)
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=110732#10

bluescreen
03-01-2007, 02:31 PM
round robin seemed ok until this del potro match ended. there are DEFINATELY some things that have to be tweeked.

all i can say is, blake, im feelin' for u man.

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 02:35 PM
edit, I don't want to give away the result, sorry.
but are you sure about what you said about the "retirement case" ?

by reading the official ATP rules, it doesn't seem obvious to me. it's not clear what such a situation should give...

edberg505
03-01-2007, 02:44 PM
but are you sure about what you said about the "retirement case" ?

by reading the official ATP rules, it doesn't seem obvious to me. it's not clear what such a situation should give...

Yup, 100 % positive.

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 02:54 PM
Yup, 100 % positive.
but you arrived to this conclusion by reading the rules, or because some official of the ATP said it ?
please excuse my curiosity... ;)

edberg505
03-01-2007, 02:58 PM
but you arrived to this conclusion by reading the rules, or because some official of the ATP said it ?
please excuse my curiosity... ;)

Because they said it repeatedly during the match. And yes there was conformation by an ATP offical.

Shabazza
03-01-2007, 03:02 PM
I was never a fan of RR and this incident just confirms how utterly BS this system is. :mad:
I just hope JMPD is going to be ok, cardiac problems sound really bad. :sad:

vive le beau jeu !
03-01-2007, 03:08 PM
so now this is official :
thanks to RR, in tennis now you can officialy eliminate your opponent by retiring against him !!!

this is seriously FRIGHTENING ! :confused:



and this thread was called "a point for RR tourneys"... :rolleyes:

dubsplayer
03-01-2007, 05:51 PM
It was a dumb idea to begin with and it's still a dumb idea. And between what went on last week in BsAs and now this it won't be long before it's binned.

Andrew
03-01-2007, 07:18 PM
Since I haven't seen it posted yet and to the benefit of anyone reading the thread that didn't know, Blake is eliminated because he was unable to replicate or better the score he was beaten by Korolev (6-2 6-4).

This rule is stupidity at its finest. Blake won the match in straight sets and surrendered fewer than 5 games. He couldn't replicate the score because he wasn't given the opportunity to do so. It's not his fault that del Potro had to retire. I really can't describe it as such; there needs to be some kind of allowance for extenuating circumstances.

bluescreen
03-01-2007, 08:40 PM
im watching the safin match right now, and they showed the quarterfinal matches during one of the change overs and it shows blake against querrey. but isnt blake out cuz del potro retired? whats up w/ that?

malakas
03-01-2007, 08:42 PM
they decided to change their own rules to sell more tickets.What a corupt organisation the ATP seems to be :roll:

bluescreen
03-01-2007, 08:48 PM
im happy for blake, but thats kinda shady on the atp's end. it makes sense though, cuz if such a case were to arise again, a player in del potro's position would have complete control over the fate of the player in blake's position, which certainly isnt fair.

i think they made the right decision, but they shouldve worked out this kink before the tournament started.

malakas
03-01-2007, 08:52 PM
so you think they made the right desicion to change the rules mid tournament for Blake and not to change them for Ferrero?

alienhamster
03-02-2007, 01:27 AM
Wow. This is a fairly complex issue now all of a sudden. It's controversial, and even has an ethical angle (to an extent). I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this on the forum. (Lo and behold! An actually new controversy!)

So, let's get the facts straight first:

(1) Was there an official rule on the books that states that Korolev MUST advance because the retirement doesn't count? The commentators sure were acting like this was the case.

(2) Blake has been advanced in the tourney? Did the rule get, umm, overruled? If so, by whom?

I'm conflicted on this as of now. I actually think the *right* thing to do is to advance Blake. He won two sets, not surrending more than, what, 3 games?

But you can't change rules like this mid-tournament. It comes off as VERY shady, particularly since Blake is the #1 seed, an American, and the biggest audience draw (IMO).

Anyone got any more news on this?

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 01:36 AM
Wow. This is a fairly complex issue now all of a sudden. It's controversial, and even has an ethical angle (to an extent). I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this on the forum. (Lo and behold! An actually new controversy!)

So, let's get the facts straight first:

(1) Was there an official rule on the books that states that Korolev MUST advance because the retirement doesn't count? The commentators sure were acting like this was the case.

(2) Blake has been advanced in the tourney? Did the rule get, umm, overruled? If so, by whom?

I'm conflicted on this as of now. I actually think the *right* thing to do is to advance Blake. He won two sets, not surrending more than, what, 3 games?

But you can't change rules like this mid-tournament. It comes off as VERY shady, particularly since Blake is the #1 seed, an American, and the biggest audience draw (IMO).

Anyone got any more news on this?
(1) yes there was ! you'll find the explanation there :
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=119909&page=4#62

(2) yes the rule was overruled... by whom, i'm not sure, but i guess Mr. Mafia-Mickey isn't foreign to this ! ;)

as you, i'm conflicted... the rules suck for sure.
in that situation, you'd naturally think that blake would advance.
but on the other hand, as you said, it's unacceptable to change the rules in the middle of the tournament... and not really honest to turn it this way :
However, the ATP Tour ruled that Blake, who was leading Del Porto, 6-1, 3-1, would have won the required games to advance if the match had not been stopped, stating that the rules of the round robin were not sufficiently explained to both players.
from : http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=lasvegastennis&prov=st&type=lgns

Tsunami
03-02-2007, 03:41 AM
Below is Safin's and Hewitt's reaction about this mess :


Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt have slammed the ATP's decision to controversially award James Blake a place in the quarter finals of the Las Vegas Open.

The American was handed a place in the last eight of the tournament despite the fact that under the rules Russian Evgeny Korolev should have advanced instead as he beat Blake in their round robin match earlier in the week.

Blake needed to beat Juan Martin del Potro with the loss of no more than five games to progress and lead 6-1 3-1 when the Argentinean retired with breathing problems, handing Blake a walkover.

The top seed was then told he would not advance as the rules stated games won or lost in a walkover did not count and his place would be awarded to Korolev before the ATP backtracked saying Blake would be given the group win "on the basis that the rules were not sufficiently explained".

But Safin and Hewitt who qualified from groups six and eight respectively have revealed their fury with the ATP.

"I want to say that the way it has been handled is just a disgrace," Safin said.

"I feel very bad for Korolev because he had nothing to do with it. He's a young guy, only on the tour a year and all of a sudden he got screwed by the organisation.

"For a serious organisation like the ATP, you can't make these kind of decisions in the middle of the week, by phone, without being there, and not to talk to the guy that's in the situation.

"And the CEO [Etienne de Villiers] disappointed me a lot. In this situation he should have handled it in a different way. It's ridiculous what they did. They have no explanation and it doesn't really fit in my brain.

Safin also believes that had the situation been the other way round, Korolev would not have been awarded the place in the last eight.

"This is exactly the saddest part," Safin added.

"If it had been the other way around nobody would care about it and it just would be no discussion at all."

Hewitt - who earlier in the week called for the rules surrounding the round robin format to be simplified - said he was "mystified" by the decision.

"To change a rule mid-tournament - that's just not right," the Australian said.

"We all start a tournament in the same boat, in the same situation. I feel sorry for the bloke that misses out, that's for sure."

The ATP has announced that Korolev has been awarded the average sum of prize money for the quarter and semi finals but Hewitt said he would have been livid.

"[I'd be] ****ed off," he added.

"This is a kid on the rise. He's beaten Blake [6-2 6-4] two nights ago. A little bit of prize money's not going to mean a whole lot to him.

"It would have been unlucky for James, he was only three games away from getting through but rules are rules.

"If that had been me, I would have done everything in my power to get through, big tournament or small tournament."

"Me and a few other guys sitting in the players lounge watching the match. We said 'is there any way that Korolev gets through?' And they [the ATP] said 'if Del Potro withdraws'.

"Even on TV they were saying it, so everyone was aware of the rule.

"The rules are in place - you can't do anything about that. So that's why I'm a little bit gobsmacked. It really is amazing."

ae77
03-02-2007, 04:02 AM
RR is dumb and unfair. ATP is just being greedy.

LeftyServe
03-02-2007, 05:11 AM
This is absolutely outrageous, and severely undermines the ATP's credibility as an organization. Just last week, in Buenos Aires, Ferrero had an opportunity to advance in a round robin by beating Lapentti. When Lapentti withdrew, Ferrero lost the opportunity to advance evven though he beat the alternate player, Dhouly. Ferrero got screwed by the stupid rule, and didn't advance even though he had the most sets and highest percentage of games won. The rule about withdrawals and retirements is ill-conceived, but the ATP said "tough luck" to Ferrero. Now, it's Blake, and they'll change the rule mid-stream for him. This is bad, very bad......

Max G.
03-02-2007, 09:59 AM
Yeah.... I wasn't sure last night, I was hoping to give them the benefit of the doubt somewhere, but this is just outrageous.