PDA

View Full Version : "How to predict match results and cancel your own rules" by mr Disney


malakas
03-01-2007, 07:30 PM
SPOILER






























after JMDP retired against Blake,Korolev was to qualify to next round according to RR rules.
The final standing of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:
- Greatest number of wins;
- Greatest number of matches completed (a retirement does not count as a completed match for the retiring player; it does however, count as a completed match for the opponent of the retiring player).
- Head-to-head results if only two (2) players are tied, or if three (3) players are tied
so you got:
korolev : 2
blake : 2
del potro : 1
and with H2H Korolev advances since he beat Blake.

BUT mr Disney strikes again!
Top-seeded and defending champion James Blake advanced to the quarterfinals on Thursday when Argentine teenager Juan Martin del Potro retired in the second set due to respiratory problems.

Blake was leading 6-1, 3-1 when the 18-year-old could not continue in the match.
http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/news/news6.asp

The explanation from the tournament according to TTC announcers is that the decision was made "based on what the score would have been had the match been completed".
So,now ATP can predict the future?:confused: http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/rocker2.gifWith the same logic applied,had JMDP not be injured he could win more than 6 games therefore Blake would be eliminated.


Changing their own stupid rules midtournament to suit the top player!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/haha.gif http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/notworthy.gifCan it get more ridiculous than that?

jaykay
03-01-2007, 07:33 PM
Absolutely APPALLING, really!!! Ridiculous...

I do like Blake, but this sounds like borderline cheating!

Alexandros
03-01-2007, 08:08 PM
Uh, that would be profoundly unfair to Korolev - he should kick up a stink about this.

Starlite
03-01-2007, 08:16 PM
Wow, this is incredible!

Uh, that would be profoundly unfair to Korolev - he should kick up a stink about this.
I agree. In fact, he probably would get a lot of player support for this too. I feel so sorry for him, but I have the feeling Etienne de Villiers would just try and fine him for unsportsmanship or something crazy like that. This could be detrimental to the sport, but I have a feeling RR for regular tourneys won't be around next year.

SoBad
03-01-2007, 08:45 PM
Thanks for posting this. The most disgusting tennis news I have read ever. If this is true, count on me to whistle every time I am in the stands watching Blake's second serve.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 08:51 PM
I would presume that a "what the score would have been had the match been completed" assigns every game to the player that did not retire.

I.e. if I retire when the score is 4-4 in the first set, it counts as if my opponent won 6-4 6-0.

That seems fair to me - or at least the most fair way of assigning a "score" to an uncompleted match. Though i have to say, I don't like any system where details of how the match was won matter...

I don't see how that should matter though, if they don't count games or sets won. I thought they did count games and sets won though, but I don't remember how exactly they figured in.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 08:56 PM
Okay, so I just looked up the facts. Korolev had NOT won both of his matches - Juan Martin Del Potro had BEATEN him.

That left Blake, JMDP, and Korolev each at a record of 1-1, with Blake beating JMDP, Korolev beating Blake, and JMDP beating Korolev. It was a three-way tie.

malakas
03-01-2007, 08:58 PM
yes,the point is that they shouldn't assign any score to an uncompleted match in the first place.Or at least according to the rules from the start of the tournament.

But,they changed it to suit their case,and let Blake through.Last week the same exact situation with Ferrero,but guess what?They didn't changed the rules and he got eliminated.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:00 PM
Well, right now I'm trying to find the rules on their site, and I don't know where... did you find them somewhere?

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:00 PM
Okay, so I just looked up the facts. Korolev had NOT won both of his matches - Juan Martin Del Potro had BEATEN him.

That left Blake, JMDP, and Korolev each at a record of 1-1, with Blake beating JMDP, Korolev beating Blake, and JMDP beating Korolev. It was a three-way tie.

no.See my first post.JMDP retired so it didn't count as a match for him.Only for Blake.And then it was a 2 way tie between Korolev and Blake with Korolev advancing because he had won Blake.
Note that had Juan Marin won more than six games he would be through immediately.

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:05 PM
Well, right now I'm trying to find the rules on their site, and I don't know where... did you find them somewhere?

Here are all the rules about round robin.
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/ATP_Rulebook2007.pdf

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:14 PM
Last week the same exact situation with Ferrero,but guess what?They didn't changed the rules and he got eliminated.

No, it was a slightly different situation...

Last week,

Ferrero lost to Devilder
Ferrero beat Dlouhy

Devilder beat Ferrero
Devilder lost to Lapentti

Lappenti and Dlouhy each played one match, and were not in the running. It was a different situation because neither of them stepped on court for a second match.

If one of them had stepped on court for their second match, and then retired, then it would have been decided by number of sets/games won.

In this week's, the second rule ("most number of completed matches") could not decide the tie, since more than one tied player had the same number of played matches, so they went to rule 3. Or at least that's how I read this, from what I know...

If you post a link to the actual rules, I would be grateful, because I still haven't been able to find them...

nevermind, posted after you gave me that link. 1 sec, I'll read it

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:18 PM
Interesting. Well, the TTC announcers were definitely wrong - it explicitly says that

"games won or lost in matches with the defaulting or retiring player shall not be counted in calculating percentage of games won." So "games blake would have won in that match" don't matter and weren't counted.

Hmm... lemme go through these again....

Yeah, no idea what's going on with this, if you don't count the games in that match then Blake shouldn't have come out on top even if you don't look at the head to head.

Hot Sauce
03-01-2007, 09:20 PM
Can someone explain to me what's going on?

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:25 PM
No, it was a slightly different situation...

Last week,

Ferrero lost to Devilder
Ferrero beat Dlouhy

Devilder beat Ferrero
Devilder lost to Lapentti

Lappenti and Dlouhy each played one match, and were not in the running. It was a different situation because neither of them stepped on court for a second match.

If one of them had stepped on court for their second match, and then retired, then it would have been decided by number of sets/games won.

In this week's, the second rule ("most number of completed matches") could not decide the tie, since more than one tied player had the same number of played matches, so they went to rule 3. Or at least that's how I read this, from what I know...If you post a link to the actual rules, I would be grateful, because I still haven't been able to find them...

nevermind, posted after you gave me that link. 1 sec, I'll read it

no you got it wrong.Ok,let me explain.
Korolev completed both matches so:2.

Blake completed the match against Korolev 1.But also JMDP retired against their match,so according to the rules,it's a completed match only for him.(Blake).so:2

JMDP,completed the match against Korolev (1) but retired against Blake.So:1

Now you got Korolev and Blake with same number of completed matches.
But according to h2h Korolev advances.

lorenza
03-01-2007, 09:29 PM
wow, that is crap that they would do this

Thanks for posting this. The most disgusting tennis news I have read ever. If this is true, count on me to whistle every time I am in the stands watching Blake's second serve.

why would you do that though? james didn't ask for this to happen, the officials just did it. and i'm pretty sure that if this happened to any player, they would not say anything about how it was wrong.....:p

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:32 PM
Blake could still not accept this breaking of rules,and refuse to continue.Since he's the vice president of the atp that would be the fair thing to do.But he decided to take Korolev's rightfull place and advance in the tournament.

Yeah sure,that is the "smart" thing to do and he will win much money,and a chance to defend his title,but that doesn't make it right not to mention that it will severely hurt his spotless image amongst the players.

lorenza
03-01-2007, 09:39 PM
hmm, very good point sani. i do think he should too, but it's obvious he's not going to. not a lot of people would. it kinda makes me disappointed in him :(

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:40 PM
Well, rereading it again, I might be able to. Sorta. It's confusing. So here are the actual rules, along with my commentary of what I think they mean, based on the way they've been applied:

The final standing of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:
i) Greatest number of wins;
Doesn't apply - gives a three-way tie

ii) Greatest number of matches completed (a retirement does not count as a completed match for the retiring player; it does however, count as a completed match for the opponent of the retiring player).

Doesn't apply - still a two-way tie with this

iii) Head-to-head results if only two (2) players are tied,

Doesn't help - three players are tied. This makes sense only if the previous rule is only applied if it can resolve the conflict, or else it would only be a two-way tie by now

or if three (3) players are tied, then:
aa) If three (3) players each have one (1) win, a player having played less than two (2) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to the knockout competition is the winner of the match-up of the two (2) players tied with 1-1 records;

In this section, they use "played" instead of "completed" - JMDP is considered to have "played" his match, even if he didn't "complete" it. So thus, this rule does not help.

or
bb) Highest percentage of sets won; or

Blake won two of the four sets he played; JMDP won two out of four; Korolev won two out of four. Doesn't help.

cc) Highest percentage of games won.

If you count games won during that last Blake-JMDP match, then Blake would have the highest percentage. I don't know whether they treat a retirement as "retiring player loses rest of the games played" or whether they just treat games that have already been played, but either way Blake gets the advantage here.

dd) If any of the above produces one (1) superior player, then this is the winner of the group; or, if it produces one (1) inferior player, and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken by head-to-head record.

The way I read this, is that cc decided it. That seems to conflict with something two lines down though.

iv) If ties still exist after the above procedures, then the player with the highest ranking shall be deemed the winner of the group.

Not relevant, games were not tied no matter how you swing it

v) In applying the tie-breaking procedures, a conduct default or retirement shall count as a straight set win or loss. However, games won or lost in matches with the defaulting or retiring player shall not be counted in calculating percentage of games won. A player who retires during the Round Robin because of illness or injury may continue in the competition if cleared to play by the Tournament
Doctor.


Oh, rereading this a second time, maybe they mean a "conduct default" or "conduct retirement" - i.e. something for nonmedical reasons. I guess if the illness/injury is cleared by the doctor then everything stands and games are counted?

That's the best I can make of the situation. It's pretty tenuous - I'm very tempted to send off an email to the ATP asking for clarification on how it worked.

I think I'll do that. But only after I finish my homework, I've spent too long on this as is... Blargh, back to particles tunneling through potential barriers and all that jazz.

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:43 PM
Max G. you don't understand rule no2.It doesn't says about matches WON but matches COMPLETED!;) So 2 completed for Korolev,2 for Blake but only 1 for Del Potro.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:44 PM
Blake could still not accept this breaking of rules,and refuse to continue.

That assumes Blake knows the rules have been broken. I'm not so sure he would - my first reaction would be to treat that JMDP match as a 6-1 3-1 win, and then he gets through fine. I'm not sure he even realizes that there are intricacies in the rules about "retirements" being treated differently from just match wins.

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:46 PM
That assumes Blake knows the rules have been broken. I'm not so sure he would - my first reaction would be to treat that JMDP match as a 6-1 3-1 win, and then he gets through fine. I'm not sure he even realizes that there are intricacies in the rules about "retirements" being treated differently from just match wins.

yes but Blake is the vice president of the players council.The same council that agreed and signed for testing the same rules of the RR format.If someone should understand and know the rules that would be first of all the members of the council that agreed on them!

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:49 PM
Max G. you don't understand rule no2.It doesn't says about matches WON but matches COMPLETED!;) So 2 completed for Korolev,2 for Blake but only 1 for Del Potro.

Yes, it says matches completed. This still leaves a two-way tie; hence, the rule does not resolve the conflict and therefore is not applied.

Looking at the way they phrased it, they say that
"the tie will be resolved by the first of the following methods that applies". This could be read as "if the method cannot resolve a tie, then it does not apply." (Since only ONE of the methods is to be applied, it must be one that resolves the tie!)

They definitely need to word the rules a lot better though, that is not at all clear and I'm not sure that that is what their reasoning actually is.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:50 PM
yes but Blake is the vice president of the players council.The same council that agreed and signed for testing the same rules of the RR format.If someone should understand and know the rules that would be first of all the members of the council that agreed on them!

Yeah, I agree that he really SHOULD know them. That doesn't mean he does... it's not like they're particularly easy to understand, and it's been a while since they were approved. Easy to gloss over all of those little tidbits about how retirements are treated differently from just match wins.

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Yes, it says matches completed. This still leaves a two-way tie; hence, the rule does not resolve the conflict and therefore is not applied.

Looking at the way they phrased it, they say that
"the tie will be resolved by the first of the following methods that applies". This could be read as "if the method cannot resolve a tie, then it does not apply." (Since only ONE of the methods is to be applied, it must be one that resolves the tie!)

They definitely need to word the rules a lot better though, that is not at all clear and I'm not sure that that is what their reasoning actually is.

yes by the second rule(completed matches) we are left with a 2 part tie.
And the tie is resolved with the first next rule that resolves it.The h2h rule.

Max G.
03-01-2007, 09:52 PM
Yeah, as soon as I finish my QM homework, I'm definitely sending off an email to someone in the ATP to get a clarification/explanation of the rules... hopefully they'll respond.

To do that, I need to finish the homework first, so I'm leaving this discussion for now. Ttyls all.

Okay, so as I posted this, I saw your last comment -

"yes by the second rule(completed matches) we are left with a 2 part tie."

I just can't leave without responding...

See, the way I read their rules, is that only ONE of those methods is to be applied - the one that resolves the situation. That rule does not resolve the situation - it brings it down from a three-way tie to a two-way tie, and that's still a tie. Therefore, that rule is not applied at all - only ONE of the rules can be applied, and it's not that one! What that rule says doesn't matter, because it's not the one that is applied to resolve the situation. Going on to the next rules, it's still a 3-way tie, and JMDP is not "eliminated" because he would have lost the tie had that rule been the one applied.

As I said, sometime later tonight I'll fire off an email and hopefully get a clarification... and for now I *really* need to sign off from here and get some work done...

SoBad
03-01-2007, 09:54 PM
hmm, very good point sani. i do think he should too, but it's obvious he's not going to. not a lot of people would. it kinda makes me disappointed in him :(

Exactly. That is why, unless James Blake between now and whatever time tomorrow, shows some semblance of dignity by rejecting the rotten scheme concocted by the tournament officials, he is in the Hall Of Shame ************-whistling club forever in my book.

SoBad
03-01-2007, 09:55 PM
oh, "second serve" is a prohibited term on these forums???

malakas
03-01-2007, 09:57 PM
lol Max G. that's how it works.I will get you examples for how that has already been applied previously in RR tournies, for you to see after you finish hw.:)

lorenza
03-01-2007, 09:59 PM
Exactly. That is why, unless James Blake between now and whatever time tomorrow, shows some semblance of dignity by rejecting the rotten scheme concocted by the tournament officials, he is in the Hall Of Shame ************-whistling club forever in my book.

yeah...now i am somewhat torn :( i love james but ugh, why did he have to do this? :(

lorenza
03-01-2007, 10:00 PM
oh, "second serve" is a prohibited term on these forums???

lol :rolleyes:

malakas
03-01-2007, 10:18 PM
I can find any examples :( since also the RR tournaments are only a few so far.But this is how it works.With the retirement you get 2way tie which is resolved by the first next rule.But if you want to look forward into it and email ATP,you are welcome to do so,and please shall they answer you,post here and enlighten us with ATP's saying of this.;)

I already emailed them to tell them what I thought of this disgrace.:rolleyes:

aznkb888
03-01-2007, 10:34 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2784958

Article by the AP as to why Blake made it through to the qtrs.

malakas
03-01-2007, 10:44 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2784958

Article by the AP as to why Blake made it through to the qtrs.

From the above article.
In letting Blake back into the tournament, the tour ruled that he would have won his round-robin group if del Potro hadn't retired.

LOL!He WOULD have won had Juan not retired.:rolleyes: Suuure.And had my grandmother had balls would be my grandfather.
James was within just a few games of wining this match comfortably to advance," said Etienne de Villiers, the tour's executive chairman and president. "Juan Martin has stated that he would have completed the match had he been fully aware of the implications of his retirement."

At least they agree that the rule is silly and should get rid of.But what they do to fix it?Instead of going BY the rules,they change them in the middle of a freaking tournament for crying out loud so as the top player to go through.:rolleyes:

A similar situation occurred in Buenos Aires, which has given us great cause for concern

Double standards much?When Lappenti retired oh you put in a lucky loser and thus eliminating any chance for Ferrero to advance.But when it happens to local boy,Etienne's puppy oh no.Change the rules!:roll:

The association will award Korolev $11,375, the average sum of the prize money for the quarterfinals and semifinals.

This is ridiculous.And how many points will you grand him mr Mickey?Half of quarterfinals and semifinals too?:roll:

angharad
03-01-2007, 10:46 PM
From the article that aznkb888 linked to:

Blake, a 6-2, 6-4 loser to Evgeny Korolev in his first-round robin match, needed to beat del Potro in straight sets and surrender five games or less to advance in a tiebreaker. The tour's reversal cost Korolev a spot in the quarterfinals.

"James was within just a few games of wining this match comfortably to advance," said Etienne de Villiers, the tour's executive chairman and president.

This is the part that I just don't get. Why on earth did it go to games won? If Korolev and Blake have two matches apiece, with del Potro below them at one match won, then it should have been resolved with the head-to-head between Korolev and Blake, which Korolev won.

So now according to another article (http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2007-03-02/146.php), Blake is awarded the win because the rules weren't "sufficiently explained", even though he's the what, VP of the player's council and agreed to the rules when they were put in place? I also didn't realize that ignorance of the rules means that the ruling goes in your favor. I know that where I live, ignorance of the law doesn't exempt you from it. It sounds like a case of the almighty dollar.

mikhail
03-01-2007, 11:09 PM
ok guys its obvious Korolev should have gone through by the "Rules" i am a big supporter of him and am outraged.
Blake is Vice President of players council...what does that mean.. does he also defend the players???? like there rights???? because if thats one thing he is meant to do he is really doing a crap job of it. This is completly ridiculous you dont just change rules to suit your prefrence. I think these are the signs of the beginning of corruption in Tennis.

The ******* organisers want money so they decide to not let Evgeni through because he cant do anything if he complains which i know he wont since us russians hardly complain it always gets us into more trouble HAHA

What is he up against????
ATP-TOURNAMENT ORGANISERS-SPONSORS-MONEY

and what has he got?
99 world ranking
$231,098 in career prize money.
He is also 19..

Its simple the more money you have you can do what ever you want to the sport because you have the power.

What can we do????
-Argue pointlessley who is rite and wrong.. we wont achieve anything. Money runs the world and the people without it just get screwed over continuisly by the selfish people who act like they are GOD!

round robin is stupid just do knockouts dis aint a team sport you can now see how weak the rules of the round robin format are

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 12:18 AM
i just turn on my computer today... after these big joke of yesterday, and what do i read ?
dios mio... they changed the rules ???

ok their rules suck more than anything... but changing them in the middle of the tournament... this is amazing ! :shock:
i think the logical thing would be to definitely give up this RR crap.
i see Mr. Mickey isn't afraid of doing anything he can for business concern......

Although the rules clearly stated that Korolev should have advanced, the ATP awarded the Russian extra prize money to deal with the technicality.

"The ATP will be awarding Evgeny Korolev the amount of $11,375, the average sum of the prize money for the quarterfinals and semifinals at this event," de Villiers said. While Blake was involved in a confusing situation, second-seeded Lleyton Hewitt was able to build off his opening round-robin win to advance without question.
from : http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=lasvegastennis&prov=st&type=lgns
the "technicality"... what a joke !!! http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif
ummm... that could be called corruption !
now i will call him Mr. Mafia-Mickey !!! :cool:

come on... please fire this guy. :D
send him back with goofy, his place is there !!!

The Grand Slam
03-02-2007, 12:36 AM
He lives up to his nickname 'Mickey Mouse'... he's a little disease-ridden rodent.

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 01:00 AM
"James was within just a few games of winning this match comfortably to advance. Juan Martin (del Potro) has stated that he would have completed the match had he been fully aware of the implications of his retirement.
(...)
In a statement issued through the ATP, del Potro said: "I wanted to finish the match, but also I was not aware of the technicality of the rule. I did not feel comfortable continuing."from : http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-menvegas&prov=reuters&type=lgns

ok, this would be a (light) argument in favor of the "late change of rules".
but still, all this is a miserable fiasco...

blake finds it ok :
"It seems to me the right decision," Blake said. "Maybe that's biased but it is a fair decision.

"The ATP are correcting a mistake. It's a solution to a problem, based on common sense. We are still in an experimentation process with this round-robin and this is what has happened. There are going to be flaws with it."
from : http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-menvegas&prov=reuters&type=lgns

on the other hand :
Safin and Hewitt said the ATP had been wrong.

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

"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 the 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.

HEWITT MYSTIFIED

Safin said had the shoe been on the other foot, Korolev would not have been given the place in the last eight.

"This is exactly the saddest part," he said. "If it had been the other way around, nobody would care about it and it just would be no discussion at all."

Hewitt said he was 'mystified' by the decision.

"To change a rule mid-tournament - that's just not right," he 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 said Korolev had been awarded $11,375, the average sum of the prize money for the quarter-finals and semi-finals, but Hewitt said he would have been livid.

"(I'd be) ****ed off," he said. "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"

Hewitt said he and several other players had been told the rule by the ATP before del Potro's withdrawal.

"Me and a few other guys were sitting in the players lounge watching the match. We said, 'is there any way that Korolev gets though?' And they 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." from : http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-menvegasreaction&prov=reuters&type=lgns

===
so... do you buy the "juan martin didn't know" or the "the rules are in place / everyone was aware of the rule" ?... ;)

malakas
03-02-2007, 01:00 AM
Nice to see other players stand up and say it how it is!
Safin, Hewitt slam ATP over Blake reinstatement fiasco

LAS VEGAS, March 1 (Reuters) - The ATP's decision to controversially award James Blake a place in the quarter-finals of the Las Vegas Open on Thursday has been slammed by leading players Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt.
The American was handed a place in the last eight by the ATP despite the fact that under its own rules, Russian Evgeny Korolev should have advanced instead, thanks to his victory over Blake in their round-robin match earlier in the week.

In a statement, the ATP said Blake would be awarded the group win "on the basis that the rules were not sufficiently explained".
Needing to beat Argentine Juan Martin del Potro with the loss of no more than five games to advance to the last eight, top seed Blake was leading 6-1 3-1 when his opponent retired because of breathing problems, handing Blake a walkover.
But Blake 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 go to Korolev only for the ATP to backtrack and send the American through.
Safin and Hewitt said the ATP had been wrong.

"I want to say that the way it has been handled is just a disgrace," Safin told Reuters.
"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 the 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.
HEWITT MYSTIFIED
Safin said had the shoe been on the other foot, Korolev would not have been given the place in the last eight.
"This is exactly the saddest part," he said. "If it had been the other way around, nobody would care about it and it just would be no discussion at all."Hewitt said he was 'mystified' by the decision.
"To change a rule mid-tournament - that's just not right," he 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 said Korolev had been awarded $11,375, the average sum of the prize money for the quarter-finals and semi-finals, but Hewitt said he would have been livid.
"(I'd be) ****ed off," he said. "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"
Hewitt said he and several other players had been told the rule by the ATP before del Potro's withdrawal.
"Me and a few other guys were sitting in the players lounge watching the match. We said, 'is there any way that Korolev gets though?' And they 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."

so much for the rules not fully explained!:roll:

malakas
03-02-2007, 01:01 AM
lol we posted the same article the same second :mrgreen:

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 01:02 AM
sani, we should work in team... we did the same job at the same time ! ;)

LOL at your new avatar !!! :D :D :D

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 01:04 AM
lol we posted the same article the same second :mrgreen:

sani, we should work in team... we did the same job at the same time ! ;)

LOL at your new avatar !!!
and synchro once again !!! :rolleyes:

mikhail
03-02-2007, 01:06 AM
so true!!! thank you vive le beau jeu ! and malakas everyone was aware and i am Happy safin as always defends the other russian players and well done hewitt i hope to see some more players doing this but not getting fined since the ATP fines you for speaking your mind HAHAHAHA

malakas
03-02-2007, 01:09 AM
sani, we should work in team... we did the same job at the same time !

LOL at your new avatar !!!

lol yeah erwan,we should create the mafia-mouse fan club!!:D ;)

After this ridiculous inciddent I felt compelled to sacrifice my beautiful old avatar *sigh* :p after all Rafa doesn't get much chances to pick his butt with all the early losses recently!:mrgreen:

Ash Doyle
03-02-2007, 04:24 AM
This is one of the most inexcuseable things I've ever seen on the pro tennis tour. He made this decision to make the tournament happy to not lose their number one seed and draw. When decisions are made like this it TOTALLY kills the integrity of the sport. The ATP needs to correct this decision quickly.

malakas
03-02-2007, 04:30 AM
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/genius.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/haha.gif http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/zkiu0x.gif http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/crazy.gif

diegaa
03-02-2007, 07:24 AM
i didnt know this. what a bunch of crap....
this is history repeating.

Green
03-02-2007, 07:37 AM
I understand this is an unpopular decision but consider one point....

When deciding to implement the RR format, one of the concerns the ATP had was that players could be put in a position to help or hurt other players by losing (intentionally) or not completing matches. In this case, Blake would have advanced by losing 5 or fewer games. He was on his way to doing that when Del Potro decided to retire. I'm not accusing Del Potro of retiring for illegitimate reasons (although he is quoted as saying he would have continued had he known the ramifications of his decision), but suppose for a second Del Potro is good friends with Korolev and he finds he is down 1-6 1-3 and maybe he isn't feeling great and doesn't think he'll be able to win another 4 games....he is now in a position to "choose" who will advance between Blake and Korolev....so maybe he thinks "Korolev is my buddy" or "I don't like Blake", I'll retire now to help my buddy. This is an unacceptable situation as far as I'm concerned.

Now, in no way am I accusing of Del Potro of actually thinking this. I'm simply suggesting what could go through the head of a dishonest player who found himself in that situation. Overall, this is a bad situation for the ATP and I imagine it will spell the end of the RR format after this year.

Please tell me if I've made a mistake in the above scenario.....

malakas
03-02-2007, 07:46 AM
yes it's a stupid rule.But it's better to be stupid and APPLY this in some tournaments for everyone to realise its stupidity,than to ILLEGALY change the rules in the middle of the tournaments to meet your ends.

malakas
03-02-2007, 08:09 AM
Please if you think atp should get rid of RR,sign this petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/nomorerr/petition.html

jmsx521
03-02-2007, 08:10 AM
When are we getting back to the normal draw system? I hope they abandon this current thing as soon as possible; it has so far proven confusing... go to a tournament and look at the fans trying to figure out the printed draw of the round robin confusion.

diegaa
03-02-2007, 08:21 AM
Please if you think atp should get rid of RR,sign this petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/nomorerr/petition.html

done. :evil:

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 08:24 AM
Please if you think atp should get rid of RR,sign this petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/nomorerr/petition.html
thanks for the link. :)
is there another petition for firing Mr. Mafia-Mickey ?
i would love to sign that.
this guy has gone to far, seriously... he's sacrificing tennis' integrity only for making his little business.

Ash Doyle
03-02-2007, 08:30 AM
thanks for the link. :)
is there another petition for firing Mr. Mafia-Mickey ?
i would love to sign that.
this guy has gone to far, seriously... he's sacrificing tennis' integrity only for making his little business.

I agree. He's coming from the entertainment business where the main goal is to entertain and make your audience happy. I think he sees this rewriting of the rules as a way to make the tournament directors (and in his eyes, the fans) happy. However, it completely destroys the integrity of the sport; and that makes him incredibly unfit to run the ATP. Get him out of here...and then get Agassi in!

malakas
03-02-2007, 08:34 AM
I don't think Agassi would be that great..but AT LEAST him having been a player would never do what DeVil liars decided today.

malakas
03-02-2007, 09:36 AM
it seems that mr Disney has cancelled his cancell of his rules http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/cuckoo.gifand now Korolev advances.

Vamos!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/rocker2.gif Now change your rules again and qualify Juan Marin!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/notworthy.gif



At least ,the right man advanced this time.:rolleyes:

jaykay
03-02-2007, 12:14 PM
Malakas: Congratulations on making your voice known. Know that you may have contributed to justice prevailing in the end. Blake (unlucky for him) stays out and Korolev goes through...

lorenza
03-02-2007, 12:18 PM
it seems that mr Disney has cancelled his cancell of his rules http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/cuckoo.gifand now Korolev advances.

Vamos!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/rocker2.gif Now change your rules again and qualify Juan Marin!http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m105/bagdaddy_2006/smilies/notworthy.gif



At least ,the right man advanced this time.:rolleyes:

i completely agree. i am so glad they changed their minds and followed their original rules....

vive le beau jeu !
03-02-2007, 12:39 PM
let's go on with this RR game. :)


imagine that del potro had finished his match vs blake, losing it but with enough games for finishing 1st of the group, and that he withdrew after that.

- no opponent for querrey in the QF ? (bye and directly in the SF)
or
- korolev or blake takes del potro's place in the QF ? (the replacing player being determined by H2H or % of games won ?)


i remind the rules of the game :
Mr. Mickey
Round Robin: Determining Group Winners

Exclusively for the hard-core tennis fan, here is an explanation of how a player is declared the winner of his round-robin group.

Each player will play every other player in his group.

All matches will be the best of three (3) tie-break sets.

The 8 group winners advance to the final rounds.

The final standing of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:
- Greatest number of wins;
- Greatest number of matches completed (a retirement does not count as a completed match for the retiring player; it does however, count as a completed match for the opponent of the retiring player).
- Head-to-head results if only two (2) players are tied, or if three (3) players are tied, then:
If three (3) players each have one (1) win, a player having played less than two (2) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to the final rounds is the winner of the match of the two (2) players tied with 1-1 records; or
Highest percentage of sets won; or
Highest percentage of games won.
If any of the above produces one (1) superior player, then this is the winner of the group; or, if it produces one (1) inferior player, and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken by head-to-head record.
- If ties still exist after the above procedures, then the player with the highest ranking shall be deemed the winner of the group. - In applying the tie-breaking procedures, a conduct default or retirement shall count as a straight set win or loss. However, games won or lost in matches with the defaulting or retiring player shall not be counted in calculating percentage of games won.

- A player who retires during the Round Robin because of illness or injury may continue in the competition if cleared to play by the Tournament Doctor.

- Any player who is defaulted pursuant to the ATP Code during the Round Robin competition shall be defaulted from all other matches in the event and the ATP default provisions shall apply, except for the following circumstances:
The loss of physical condition; or
Dress and equipment.

- Any player who withdraws from any Round Robin match after the first round shall not be eligible for the final rounds.

- Any player who withdraws, or is withdrawn, after only one (1) Round Robin match may be replaced by an alternate player and that player may be eligible for the final rounds.

- Alternates for the Main Draw Elimination Round shall be the Lucky-Losers from the qualifying event.

- Alternates for the Round Robin competition shall be the Lucky-Losers from the Main Draw Elimination Round.

- There is no substitution in the final rounds.
according to this last sentence, i'd say querrey would go directly in the SF in that situation.
what do you think they would have done ?

All characters presented in this story are fiction, and any resemblance to any actual persons would be coincidental. :rolleyes:

lorenza
03-02-2007, 12:52 PM
let's go on with this RR game. :)


imagine that del potro had finished his match vs blake, losing it but with enough games for finishing 1st of the group, and that he withdrew after that.

- no opponent for querrey in the QF ? (bye and directly in the SF)
or
- korolev or blake takes del potro's place in the QF ? (the replacing player being determined by H2H or % of games won ?)


i remind the rules of the game :
Mr. Mickey

according to this last sentence, i'd say querrey would go directly in the SF in that situation.
what do you think they would have done ?

All characters presented in this story are fiction, and any resemblance to any actual persons would be coincidental. :rolleyes:

hahaha. but wow, don't make this more confusing than it already is! :p
but they probably would have done the same thing, said one thing after a "long discussion," then changed their minds after a bit, then changed them again...:D

RR is CRAP!

SoBad
03-02-2007, 08:36 PM
I am so happy it was all sorted out. The most disgusting attempt at rule manipulation by appearance fee player and tournament organisers. Kudos to Safin and Hewitt for speaking out. Blake and the Las Vegas tourny are a joke, and if commentators mention how great generous man Agassi paid for his ticket to attend the event one more time, I am going to puke.

malakas
03-03-2007, 09:58 AM
Malakas: Congratulations on making your voice known. Know that you may have contributed to justice prevailing in the end. Blake (unlucky for him) stays out and Korolev goes through...

thanx, you are very kind.I don't think I have contributed that much though.:p

But let's not forget that all this mess probably has happened after the best intentions to correct a really stupid rule that made no common sense in the first place.A stupid rule that I hope that we will get completely rid off after the next player's councill meeting.:)

whistleway
03-04-2007, 06:01 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6416395.stm

Round-robin is doomed - Federer

Federer has never been in favour of the round-robin system
World number one Roger Federer has predicted that the men's tour will be forced to abandon the controversial round-robin system in tournaments.
His comments come after James Blake went out of the Las Vegas Open following a mix-up over the rules.

"I doubt it's going to happen next year, the round-robin system," Federer said. "I think it's a bad situation."

The Association of Tennis Professionals will discuss the round-robin format at a board meeting on 22 March.

The round-robin trial has been introduced at some tournaments in 2007 in an attempt to boost interest from the media and sponsors and to give spectators more chance of seeing the big names of the sport in action.

However, the format has been criticised and the confusion in Las Vegas, which follows a similar situation in Buenos Aires, has intensified opposition.


If some good can come out of it, the revamping or destruction of the round-robin system, then that is something

James Blake

Blake had needed to win his final round-robin match in straight sets with the loss of no more than five games to secure a quarter-final place but his opponent's retirement during the match denied him that chance.

ATP chief executive Etienne de Villiers stepped in to announce that Blake would be allowed through to the last eight, only to make a U-turn 24 hours later.

Federer added: "It's going to be interesting to see their (the ATP's) reaction now because they're definitely under pressure.

"Everybody knows I was against it (the round-robin system) in the first place.

"It's actually very disappointing to see things like this had to happen first before you realise that the system is not going to work."

Blake himself said he understood the decision to eliminate him from the tournament but called on the ATP to look at changing the rules.

"If some good can come out of it - the revamping or destruction of the round-robin system - then that is something," he said.

"It seriously needs to be looked at. We're going to run into situations every single week."

malakas
03-04-2007, 06:57 AM
“What I thought was that a common-sense overrule took place. But if we have to go by the letter of the law, I’m okay with that.”

REALLY..blake just stop talking!:rolleyes: Ridiculous.

for a very interesting article : http://tennisworld.typepad.com/travelblogue/2007/03/another_twist.html

malakas
03-05-2007, 12:00 AM
An interview of Korolev in Russian-Translation courtesy of AnnaK_4ever from MTF.

"The rules were known before tournament' start. Yes, they are complicated and far from optimal, I believe. I knew if del Potro retired I would advance to the quarters... I was following the match via internet and when Blake had led 6-1 1-0 I was off to the club to receive prize money and papers for next tournament. And all of sudden I met del Potro who said, "You are through". "How? What happenned", I asked. He said, "I have breathe problems".

"Then I came up to James and said, "Sorry but that's it". He replied, "They are still discussing". "Discussing what?" "Who's gonna advance." "But according to the rules it's me, isn't it? If I am wrong then I accept it cos it's really not fair towards you".

"Later I've been told Blake got angry after the match and went to supervisor to appeal the rules. Of course he was leading and should win eventually but rules are the rules. Also I've been told ATP chairman changed them by one phone call and decided James would play.

"I was unhappy with that decision, of course. And I was supported by Safin, Hewitt and Johansson. I wanna thank Marat especially. He came to me and said, "Come with me. We need to solve all this". He very softly told them everything he thought of this situation. He asked them how could they do that and who gave them a right to change the rules mid-tournament?
"I also got in touch with my agents and they helped me too. One of them woke me up at 5 a.m. and said, "You will play". At 6 a.m. Mark Derby called me and said de Villiers changed his mind in my favor. The next one who called me was de Villiers himself. He apologized and said he did what he thought would be the best thing.

"They had meeting in Dubai with Federer and other guys taking part in it. All of them said it was me who should play by the rules. They contacted de Villiers and came to conclusion nobody was allowed to change the rules in the middle of tournament.

"I haven't met Blake since Thursday when we both still thought he came through. I told him I couldn't be satisfied obviously but wished him luck for the rest of tournament.

"I don't want to discuss whether Blake was right or not. The fact that James talked to the officials and probably phoned to ATP was kind of natural decision. He stated the rules had a hole. What else could he do? Anyway, I hope we got each other right."
http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?135413

It appears more and more that Blake tried to loby his way to the quarterfinals by benting the rules...:/

Max G.
03-05-2007, 12:06 AM
The rules are kind of broken though. It seems stupid that if you win 6-1 6-1, then you get through, but if you're leading 6-1 5-1 40-0 when your opponent retires, then you don't go through... Blake really should have played by the rules and appealed them either before or after the tournament, whatever they are they need to be followed. Reflects quite badly on both him and the tournament.

Well, hopefully they'll fix the rules so this kind of crap doesn't happen again.

malakas
03-05-2007, 12:10 AM
The rules are kind of broken though. It seems stupid that if you win 6-1 6-1, then you get through, but if you're leading 6-1 5-1 40-0 when your opponent retires, then you don't go through... Blake really should have played by the rules and appealed them either before or after the tournament, whatever they are they need to be followed. Reflects quite badly on both him and the tournament.

Well, hopefully they'll fix the rules so this kind of crap doesn't happen again.

I agree on everything but the first sentence.The rules are either broken or not.In laws and rules there is not "kind of" or woulda should coulda.

And I hope they get completely rid of RR.If you lose,you lose if you win you advance.I mean Korolev is a young guy who made perhaps the biggest win of his carreer so far,beating no.6 in the world.Would it be more "fair" or "common sense" if he was disqualified too?..