Why not play a match instead of having a Walkover?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennisfreak, Sep 6, 2004.

  1. tennisfreak

    tennisfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    631
    Instead of a Walkover, why not have the player who lost in the previous round to the forfeiter play the match instead. That way a match will still be played, the spectators will still be able to watch tennis, and no one will be given an unfair advantage from not having to play a round. I am upset because I was looking forward to the Fed match today. I'm sure Lee, the guy who lost to Pavel the previous round, would love a chance to play Fed. Now we may have to settle for a stupid mixed doubles match. It is ridiculous.

    The only problem is a player would have to stay around for a couple more days when they lose if they want the opportunity to play again. But I think most players would agree to this idea.
     
    #1
  2. Tennis Guy

    Tennis Guy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    414
    I agree, but it wouldn't be fair to Fed if Lee beat him.
     
    #2
  3. tennisfreak

    tennisfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    631
    Hmm... is it fair to agassi that Fed will be playing on 4 days rest? I think my solution will guarantee that a match would be played, so players will have to be ready to play a match no matter what, and everyone plays the same amount of tennis.
     
    #3
  4. Tennis Guy

    Tennis Guy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    414
    What happened to Pavel? Could he have defaulted before his match against Lee? I actually do agree that Fed should play Lee though.
     
    #4
  5. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    its a tournament, u guys are thinking round robin. one and done, u go home after a loss. do u expect 64 players after the first round to hang out just incase? hell, the next thing u will propose is a consalation :)
     
    #5
  6. tennisfreak

    tennisfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    631
    Another solution could be to have the highest ranking player to have lost in the previous round stay around for a couple of days just in case. Either way, a solution must be found for this walkover crap.
     
    #6
  7. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    I disagree.. no tournament is ever going to be completely fair.. W/Os are just a part of it.

    If u go down this road.. where do u draw the line? If your opponent gets injured after one game and can't continue.. do u then find a replacement? The bottom line is Pavel won and Lee is out and doesn't have another bite at the cherry.
     
    #7
  8. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    '

    say the #2 seed loses first round (happens more than walkovers). he should play the #1 seed in the 2nd round?

    walkovers happen very rarely unless the bryan twins are playing singles vs each other.
     
    #8
  9. sliceroni

    sliceroni Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    874
    Much like Roddick, Agassi has got his rhythm right now. I for one actually think that this can be to his advantage because he'll need a fast start against Federer and maybe (he is human) it'll take Fed at little longer to find his rhythm after this small lay-off. Agassi didn't expend a lot of energy today, and won't show fatigue until the finals.
     
    #9
  10. tennisfreak

    tennisfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    631
    That is a good point. What about not allowing Walkovers past a certain round, say the round of 16. That way, only 16 players will have to stay a couple of days in case of a forfeit.

    The reason I want to find a solution is that it is in the detriment of the tennis audience, the people who buy the tickets, and therefore the sport, that walkovers are allowed.
     
    #10
  11. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    ur case would have been much stronger a few years ago when the williams sisters refused to play each other in the final. they even waited for the stands to fill before announcing it. ppl paid $75 to $2500 to watch the doubles final.

    its just too hard to regulate, one thing i would like to see though is a feed in consolation from the quarter finals in any event that plays 3-5. would give us fans alot more quality tennis to watch, but i doubt players would like it.
     
    #11
  12. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Well, "not allowing walkovers" is not an option. What if a player is too injured to play? What's he gonna do if he, say, hurt his wrist and can't hold the racket in his right hand?

    Actually, I know exactly what would happen. The player would show up, play one point and retire, since he's too injured to continue. Is that any better for the audience? Any more "fair" to the other players in the tournament?

    Walkovers are a part of the game, just as a retirement from a match.
     
    #12
  13. TeNNis17

    TeNNis17 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    12
    This topic is stupid and pointless...
     
    #13
  14. jun

    jun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    548
    From spectator's perspetive, it would be great. But from player's perspective, it's not a fair deal unless the person who's having walkover is guaranteed a victory. S/he has already advanced to the next round because the other person is unable to play. And the person who lost the previous round is OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT. That's how tournament formation works. And you can't simply ask the person to hang around 1~2 days more just so s/he CAN sub in for a meaningless match.

    It's not totally fair a person gets 4 days rest and the other player doesn't. But there is nothing can be done about it. If it rains, some players might have to play 2~3 days in a row. Tough luck, but you've got to deal with it.
     
    #14
  15. coach

    coach Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    um okay, so don't post next time, seems like a few of us think this topic is worthwhile.

    Again, as someone else said earlier, how would you like to pay 2 grand to watch a doubles match when you expected to be entertained watching the number one player in the world?

    people are resistant to change for sure but don't we all agree that tie-breakers in the early sets are a good thing? people weren't exactly embracing that change back when it was proposed.
     
    #15
  16. jings

    jings Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    863
    At the logical extension of this it would be possible for Lee to lose in the US Open, then get a reprieve, come back and play and win three matches and win the tournament. Nonsense. He's out, he's done and he had his chance. Whether his conqueror has a heart attack, is run over by a bus or herniates a disc, once you lose you're out, end of story, no way back. Start giving people second chances and it negates the whole point of competition and the history of the tournaments held to date. Like life, tournament play is not a dress rehearsal.
     
    #16
  17. tennisfreak

    tennisfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    631
    Hypothetical situation:

    Suppose you are a ticket holder to a grand slam final in which Roddick is playing Agassi. But Roddick in the semfinal match blows his arm out serving a 160 mph bomb against Federer, but somehow manages to win the match. The next day it is obvious Roddick cannot play. Would you rather see Agassi take the championship by default, or would you rather see the next guy in line (Federer) play Agassi for the championship? I, for one, would rather see the match. It is not like Federer hadn't earned a spot in the final. He made Andy have to serve a 160 mph bomb to beat him.

    Anyways, substitute in any of the top tennis players in this scenario, and the situation still holds. (Except for the 160 mph serve of course.)

    I think people would want to see a match. It would be good for TV audience, the ticket holders and for tennis.
     
    #17
  18. jings

    jings Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    863
    Tennisfreak, you can create any situation you like, but losers go home and the winners move on. It's the natural order, the way of the world. It would be a shame of course, but occasionally nasty brown stuff happens.

    "It's not like Federer didn't earn a spot in the final" - he lost a match in tournament play, how do you not earn a place in the next round any other way? Whether you hold a ticket, the Queen of Sheba is waiting to see action or the entire planet has tuned in, if there's no game, there's no game. That's the law!
     
    #18
  19. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    I'd rather see Agassi take the championship by default. They can play an exhibition match to satisfy the audience if u want but no way should a losing semi-finalist then have a chance to win the tournament.
     
    #19
  20. hihihi8402

    hihihi8402 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    The guy had a herniated disc in his SPINE! No one can play with that. Fools!

    Mike
     
    #20
  21. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    This is by far the best reason why walkovers are just fine.
     
    #21

Share This Page