PDA

View Full Version : Round Robin system - good or bad


AsgerHO
03-02-2007, 03:24 AM
I guess this topic has been discussed before, but I haven´t been able to find the right place to put this post, so I hope it´s ok.

I would simply like to know what you think of the RR-system.

Personally I´m against it, and I´d like to hand out my arguments

First of all, and IMO the most obvious argument is that the great thing about tournaments is that if you have just one bad match, you´re out.
This is what creates the big upsets - you can´t afford to loose a match, and still proceed in the tournament.

Secondly it has become much more difficult for the players who are just below the players who´s directly into the round robin stage, to get in the main draw.

Actually the qualifiers have to, not only go through the whole qualification, but after winning 3 or 4 matches in the QD, they are facing a much tougher opponent in the Main Draw elimination round, and there is a great risc that they´ll loose that match.

I know that some of the arguments for the RR system is that you will get more matches, and more excitement, but well I have to say that I really don´t agree on that. First of all, most matches isn´t that interesting in the RR-stage. Mostly there is one really good player, and two players who are not that great - no bad words for the other players, but it´s not as interesting as watching a "normal" tournament, where you can watch the draw, and see who is going to face who later on etc.

What made me do this post was that I´ve just read that in the Las Vegas tournament, James Blake has just proceeded to the QF´s without winning one single match.
He lost his first RR match to Eyvgeny Korolev, quite convincing, and then the 3rd player in the respective group pulled out (not sure if it was because of an injury or something else). But originally matches which has not been started, and is regarded as a wlakover does not count in the group, and therefore Korolev should have been through to the QF´s, because he beat Blake.

But somehow the ATP was able to find a rule-change, which made the "win" for Blake count in the group, and suddenly Blake is trhough to the QF´s. (which means that Korolev must have lost his match to the by now unknown player)

IMO that is what should convince everyone about the fact that the RR system does not work as it should. And I´d like to speak a word for getting the normal system back in EVERY tournament.

What do you guys think?

RedKat
03-02-2007, 03:38 AM
Round Robin seems to more fair to me. It eliminates a factor of luck, having a bad day etc. and even manipulating the draw on purpose. Imagine facing Fed in the first round? Bad luck. You always hear comments from players like "I had a tough draw" or "he had an easy draw" etc. I think for this reason end year Masters played by RR

caulcano
03-02-2007, 03:40 AM
RR is designed so that top players advances.

It's even more of a bad idea if it causes controvesy, ala Blake.

AsgerHO
03-02-2007, 04:10 AM
Round Robin seems to more fair to me. It eliminates a factor of luck, having a bad day etc. and even manipulating the draw on purpose. Imagine facing Fed in the first round? Bad luck. You always hear comments from players like "I had a tough draw" or "he had an easy draw" etc. I think for this reason end year Masters played by RR

But isnt it the beauty about the game of tennis, concerning the touraments. That if you have a bad day, and everyone has, then youre out.
Thats the way it should be - so you have a tough draw, just bad luck, live with it. You might have a better draw in the next tournament.

I think its acceptable in the Masters Cup, because the collect the 8 best players of the year to compete, so its 8 great players, facing each other, instead of no. 8 in the world faces no. 84 and 112 - if you understand what I mean.

DueSouth
03-02-2007, 06:20 AM
Just quoting myself from another thread this is what I think:

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 IMO 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 player who DID win every match. I think it should just be who is best on the day...so what if your favourtite player goes out on the first day...the other player was better than him!

Rhino
03-02-2007, 06:31 AM
I have to say, I totally agree with your points AsgerHO.
Upsets are part of the excitement of tournaments, and Blake getting through while Korolev going out is ridiculous.

malakas
03-02-2007, 06:39 AM
Where is the option for "it sucks" ?

Bical
03-02-2007, 06:41 AM
Sucks.

Back to older system !

ATXtennisaddict
03-02-2007, 06:47 AM
The only ppl who want the RR system are the ppl paying for tickets to see their favorite players. And of course, the losers on tour.

tintin
03-02-2007, 09:00 AM
bull***** is what I consider that RR

croatian sensation
03-02-2007, 09:51 AM
The only ppl who want the RR system are the ppl paying for tickets to see their favorite players. And of course, the losers on tour.

I guess, but if you are a real tennis fan, then you know there is an option your fav player might lose before you get to see him. So, who would support a disgraceful system that is ruining the sport they supposedly love, just so that their ticket pays off?!

RR sucks!!!!

oscar_2424
03-02-2007, 11:57 AM
I guess, but if you are a real tennis fan, then you know there is an option your fav player might lose before you get to see him. So, who would support a disgraceful system that is ruining the sport they supposedly love, just so that their ticket pays off?!

RR sucks!!!!

i second this

CanadianChic
03-02-2007, 11:59 AM
I do not like RR at all. That's all I really can say.

c_zimma
03-02-2007, 12:03 PM
It takes away from the game of tennis. Tennis is so special because if you do have an off day, you are done. Thats great in my opinion. If you are tired or sick or whatever, that's your problem. If you're out, you're out. And like someone mentioned above, the RR system is bound to cause problems, like in Blake's situation.

kevhen
03-02-2007, 12:52 PM
RR is ok if you just have a small group of players like 4-8 players, but the big problem is deciding tiebreaks and using games won and lost as the decider especially if players get injured or just tank matches to let a buddy through (possibly they could be splitting the cash behind the scenes, collusion).

AndrewD
03-03-2007, 01:29 AM
Round Robins: the players don't like them, the tennis-watching public don't like them (stuffed if I know where the ATP dug up their respondents), but the tournament promoters love them.

Guess we can see (as if we didn't already know) who the ATP is working for.

supertennis
03-03-2007, 06:45 PM
the players don't like them bad idea

ctbmar
03-04-2007, 08:45 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/1/posting/2007/433/mds.pdf%20

From the website, it says that Korolev, Evgeny advanced due to Head-to-Head. But I see people posting that Blake advanced to the quarters. Am I missing something?

malakas
03-04-2007, 08:54 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.atptennis.com/1/posting/2007/433/mds.pdf%20

From the website, it says that Korolev, Evgeny advanced due to Head-to-Head. But I see people posting that Blake advanced to the quarters. Am I missing something?

In a few words:
first Korolev advanced with the decision of the ATP supervisor Marc Darby and accordin to THE RULES OF RR.Then De Villiers overruled the decision and put Blake through "because it was commonsense and he would have won HAD the match be finished",and they tried to shut up Korolev with some money bonus.It turned out that De Villiers according to the rules of ATP itself,didnt' have the authority to overrule that decision,so the ATP changed its mind again and Korolev advanced.The CEO had to publicly admit that he screwed up and the good thing from this disgrace is that it is most probably the end of RR itself.The end.

OnceWas
03-04-2007, 07:05 PM
RR format does not belong in Professional tennis.

BlackSheep
03-04-2007, 07:09 PM
Very bad idea....proved by the TCO.

kevhen
03-05-2007, 06:57 AM
I think RR is a bad idea but if they are going to use then they should see how other sports use it. Soccer has round robin in World Cup with the top 2 teams from each group of 4 moving on. So there is only one scenario where teams wouldn't be fighting for a spot to move on going into the last round.

Another format I heard from a volleyball player is to have 4 team round robins but no team is eliminated but after the round robin, teams are then seeded.

Round Robins in my opinion shouldn't be used unless you have 8 or less players in a draw.

pound cat
03-06-2007, 04:12 AM
Round robin is doomed says Federer...BBC

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."

fr600
03-06-2007, 06:16 AM
It's really not good.

Camilio Pascual
03-06-2007, 07:21 AM
What made me do this post was that Ive just read that in the Las Vegas tournament, James Blake has just proceeded to the QFs without winning one single match.
He lost his first RR match to Eyvgeny Korolev, quite convincing, and then the 3rd player in the respective group pulled out (not sure if it was because of an injury or something else). But originally matches which has not been started, and is regarded as a wlakover does not count in the group, and therefore Korolev should have been through to the QFs, because he beat Blake.
But somehow the ATP was able to find a rule-change, which made the "win" for Blake count in the group, and suddenly Blake is trhough to the QFs. (which means that Korolev must have lost his match to the by now unknown player)

Hilarious!
Definitely a bad idea in most aspects.
However, tournament sponsors and casual fans probably like it.