Do you think a walkover should count as a win/loss

[McEnroeisanartist]

What do you think, should a walkover count as a win/loss?

For example: Federer had a walkover during his 2008-2008 Wimbledon match winning streak and a walkover during his 2004-2009 U.S. Open match winning streak. It is listed as 40 match winning streaks for both, when I think it should be 41 including the walkovers.

On the other side, after his crushing 2011 U.S. Open semifinal loss to Djokovic, Federer won 20 matches, withdrew before his match against Tsonga, then won a match at the Australian Open, received a walkover, then won three more matches. I think most sources list this as a 24 match winning streak. I think it should be only 20, Federer should be penalized for withdrawing from a match.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

When it comes to records maybe we should count it as a loss, as W/Os could superficially pad undefeated streaks.

 

[tacou]

I think a W/O before a match, i.e. the match simply never happens/no tickets sold/no warm-up, it should count as nothing for either player.

No match was played. No one won, no one lost. 0-0.

 

[cknobman]

I does not count if it never happened.

 

[Vcore89]

Just go with the rulebook.

 

[Backspin1183]

If there's no match, there's no winner.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

I think a W/O before a match, i.e. the match simply never happens/no tickets sold/no warm-up, it should count as nothing for either player.

No match was played. No one won, no one lost. 0-0.

But appreciate this problem: someone could go an entire career winning every R1 match of a tournament and giving up after that.

 

[SStrikerR]

Nothing for the player who advances, loss for the player who didn't play.

 

[booson]

I would count it both ways.

 

[mellowyellow]

I view it as a win and a loss, it's an admission that one could not compete and win an entire match. Most of the time one could play a set sometimes 2.... If you committed to play a tourney you committed to winning or losing to end it. Only way I see getting around it is to not start it with enough time for a substitute.

 

[NatF]

I don't think it counts as anything really.

 

[Bud]

No it should not.

If 'winning streaks' is a concern, just count consecutive matches won. That removes any walkovers.

But appreciate this problem: someone could go an entire career winning every R1 match of a tournament and giving up after that.

That would be more a stigma than an accomplishment. No rational person would do that intentionally.

 

[Andres]

What do you think, should a walkover count as a win/loss?

For example: Federer had a walkover during his 2008-2008 Wimbledon match winning streak and a walkover during his 2004-2009 U.S. Open match winning streak. It is listed as 40 match winning streaks for both, when I think it should be 41 including the walkovers.

On the other side, after his crushing 2011 U.S. Open semifinal loss to Djokovic, Federer won 20 matches, withdrew before his match against Tsonga, then won a match at the Australian Open, received a walkover, then won three more matches. I think most sources list this as a 24 match winning streak. I think it should be only 20, Federer should be penalized for withdrawing from a match.

A withdraw IS a loss. It's a retirement. A walkover is not. A player doesn't win if he doesn't play. Nor he doesn't lose. Match didn't take place.

 

[tenniscasey]

Should be treated like a bye. Not a win.

 

[4hhhh]

If you receive points due to a walkover which they do, that should be a win and consequently a loss for other person. If it is before the tournament begins and they can replace the person, it should not count.

 

[Larry Duff]

A loss for both