what are the qualifying rules in masters cup?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by doctorwho, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. doctorwho

    doctorwho New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17
    if two players are tied for one place, does head to head take precedence over sets won? example, suppose fed beats roddick in straight sets, same for gonzo over davydenko. that would leave fed roddick gonzo ,all on 2-1 matches won.sets 5-2,4-3,4-3,. would gonzo exit by losing to roddick?roddick has apparently already qualified.
    simiar possibilities in other group.
     
    #1
  2. rahul

    rahul New User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    2007 rule book.

    head-to-head takes precedence when only 2 players are tied. when 3 are tied h2h comes last.

    i'm fairly sure the atp goofed when they said that roddick had already qualified. davydenko should still be in the hunt as well.
     
    #2
  3. StunLock

    StunLock Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    Shanghai, 中国
    sets won then head to head
     
    #3
  4. roysid

    roysid Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,390
    Roddick has already qualified for semis.

    - If roddick beats fed, he qualifies with 3 wins.

    - If roddick loses to Fed and Gonzo loses To Davydenko, Roddick qualifies. Roddick, Federer - 2 wins, Gonzo, Davy - 1 win

    - If Roddick loses to Fed and Gonzo beats Davydenko, then Roddick, Fed and Gonzo are 3 way tied with 2 wins each. So have to look at sets.

    Roddick is currently 4-1, Fed 3-2 and Gonzo 2-3
    - Fed beats Rod 2-1, Gonzo beats Davy 2-1. So, finally Rod 5-3, Fed 5-3, Gonzo 4-4. Fed and Rod qualifies.
    - Fed beats Rod 2-1, Gonzo beats Davy 2-0. So Rod 5-3, Fed 5-3, Gonzo 4-3. Still Fed and Rod qualifies as they won more sets then Gonzo, 5 to 4.
    - Fed beats Rod 2-0, Gonzo beats Davy 2-1. So Fed 5-2, Rod 4-3, Gonzo 4-4. Fed and Rod qualifies (he lost less sets than Gonzo)
    - Fed beats Rod 2-0, Gonzo beats Davy 2-0. So Fed 5-2, Rod 4-3, Gonzo 4-3. Fed qualifies. Since Rod and Gonzo are same, on head to head Rod will qualify.


    This specifies that Fed will definitely qualify as #1 if he beat Roddick, never mind the sets or Gonzo's results. Poor Gonzo, he needs some luck.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2007
    #4
  5. rahul

    rahul New User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    the rule book clearly states set percent, *then* game percent, and only then head-to-head if two players are still tied.

    gonzo can still overtake roddick in game percent (he won't though). similarly, davydenko can still overtake fed.
     
    #5
  6. doctorwho

    doctorwho New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17
    more analysis

    this is more of a mathematical exercise.(being unlikely)
    if fed b roddick 6-2,6-1, and gonzo b davydenko 6-1,6-0, then roddick and gonzo would be tied on matches w/l (2-1) and sets w/l (4-3) , but gonzo would indeed move ahead of roddick on games ratio (31-28 roddick versus 34-30 gonzo).thus fed and gonzo would qualify.
    if roysid is correct, this analysis is redundant.
    if rahul is correct however(as i understand you) ,sets and games are analysed before h2h ,roddick is knocked out.
     
    #6
  7. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    Yes, head to head takes precedence if two are tied, sets and games if three are tied. Roddick has not automatically qualified yet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Zaragoza

    Zaragoza Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,433
    Location:
    Zaragoza,Spain
    Yes, Roddick has qualified. If he loses in straights and Gonzalez wins in straights they would be tied in the sets ratio (4-3) and Federer would have a better ratio than both (5-2) so look at the last paragraph iv) which is the key here. Federer would be the superior player, and the Roddick-Gonzalez tie would be broken by head-to-head (Roddick wins).

    ) The final standings of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:
    a) Greatest number of wins;
    b) Greatest number of matches played;
    c) Head-to-head results if only 2 players are tied, or if 3 players are tied, then:
    i) If 3 players each have one win, a player having played less than all 3 matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to the Single Elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the 2 players tied with 1-2 records; or
    ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or
    iii) Highest percentage of games won.
    iv) If (i), (ii) or (iii) produce one superior player (first place), or one inferior player (third place), and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two players shall be broken by head-to-head record.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2007
    #8
  9. David L

    David L Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    London
    Yes, my mistake, Roddick has qualified.
     
    #9
  10. doctorwho

    doctorwho New User

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17
    re zaragoza

    yes , i am inclined to agree .thanks
     
    #10
  11. rahul

    rahul New User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    * The final standings of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:

    (iv) is only applied if (i), (ii), and (iii) are still tied. your analysis has bumped (iv) (head-to-head) ahead of (iii) (game percentage).

    what's unfortunate here is that davydenko may think he's already eliminated, when (by the 2007 rule book, at least) he should still be in contention.
     
    #11
  12. Yamor

    Yamor New User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    I don't think you're right, Rahul, the point of rule iv) is that you revert to the standard head-to-head rule once you have knocked out the third guy through any of i), ii) and iii). Basically, i), ii) and iii) are only used to eliminate the third guy.
    I do agree with you that the wording of the rule-book is a bit ambiguous, but i'm sure this is true...
     
    #12
  13. hlkimfung

    hlkimfung Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    so by being the first to qualify does NOT mean the top of the group
     
    #13
  14. Yamor

    Yamor New User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3
    That's right, e.g. Roddick, he was first to qualify, but will finish second if he loses to Federer
     
    #14
  15. hlkimfung

    hlkimfung Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    2-0 mean nothing!!!

    happen in 1997

    Moya 2-1

    On the RR final day, Sampras (1-1) play Rafter (2-0)

    If Rafter win,
    Rafter 3-0
    Moya 2-1
    Sampras 1-2

    Rafter win the group, Sampras out

    --------------------------
    If Sampras win in three
    Sampras 2-1
    Rafter 2-1
    Moya 2-1

    Sampras win the group, Moya out due to worst percentage
    --------------------------
    If Sampras win in straight (real case)

    Moya 2-1
    Sampras 2-1
    Rafter 2-1

    Moya win the group, Rafter out due to worst percentage

    -------------------------

    All Rafter need to do is winning one set, but he can't do it
     
    #15
  16. hlkimfung

    hlkimfung Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546
    in 2002, final RR match, Moya (2-0) could have let Costa (1-1)win their match-up to make them both into Semi, eliminating Hewitt (2-1).
     
    #16
  17. hlkimfung

    hlkimfung Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    546

    but he didn't, he won the group and play JCF in semi, which he lost, if he choose to lost to Costa, then he play Federer, which is weaker than JCF by then
     
    #17
  18. rahul

    rahul New User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    yamor: that seems to be the consensus, and i won't argue the point. that rule section should then just be rewritten with (iv) appearing earlier in the structure.

    speaking of rewriting the rules, it looks like aspelin/knowle have won their group ahead of knowles/nestor due to set *percentage* (4-2 being greater than 5-3). this is peculiar. i think set *differential* would make more sense here.
     
    #18

Share This Page