An idea for WTF

[vanioMan]

I thought about this last night after watching darts (Premier League).

Basically, what my idea is - instead of having two groups each consisting of 4 players, followed by semis and finals, we again take the top 8 guys but have them play against each other once. Straight set wins will grant 3 points, three set wins - 2 points, three set losses - 1 point and straight set losses - 0 points.

This would make a total of 28 matches played. I've thought about 3 options after these matches are finished:

A. The guy with most points is declared as the champion. If #1 and #2 and even, then they play each other to define the overall winner.

B. The guys ranked #1 and #2 play each other in a final, regardless of how many points they have.

C. Take the top 4 guys with most points and have a random draw to make two semifinals, the winners of which will contest in the final.

My big concern with this is the fact that WTF is played in the end of the season and I'm sure whether players will have enough gas in the tank for so many matches. Another thing is that this kind of format will probably take 10-14 days to be finished.

What could be done is, have this format every other year and put another week of rest between Paris and London. And also have Davis Cup every other year.

Disclaimer: I'm not seriously saying this change should be made or implemented. Just some food for thought.

 

[Russeljones]

Don't like it one bit.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Make it play at a proper speed. :twisted:

 

[RF-18]

It is good as it is. That idea is not good imo.

 

[PMChambers]

No, the aim of the WTF is to separate the Top 8. It force those that won GS without facing big names to prove themselves against the top players. It's not really a "real" tournament. It's to force the top players to fight for more points that it probably worth to differentiate themselves against H2H and guarantee top matches. In today's game where 6-7 of the Top 8 make the Qtr, it's a bit mute.

In my eyes it's a spectacle rather than a tournament and is artificially over rated to ensure attendance/effort. If it was not compulsory I can see a lot of players ignoring it except where it's point weighting can make a difference in ranks for some. It is a requiement to be considered a seirious No.1 contender.

In my eyes it's lost a lot since the 70's and early 80's. But that was more due to the hate and dislike between the players and their desire for money. The prize money of the tournament makes no real difference to top 8 real income. The points effect a player income more but for several of these players they have little chance to significantly change their ranking.

End of the day it's a fast exo tournament where half the players can turn up for a week and leave with little pay and no additional points with the remaining potentially swapping end of year rankings.

It's always felt contrived to me like most EXO's. There's a doco on you tube with Fed, Hewit, ARod era which gives the impression it's all a bit "whatever". Definitively not a Major or Masters feel.

 

[NatF]

5 set SF and F with a day off in between is the only change I would make.

 

[TheMusicLover]

5 set SF and F with a day off in between is the only change I would make.

Seconded.

10WTFs

 

[NatF]

Seconded.

10WTFs

Would love more best of 5 finals. Wonder how many Rome 2005's we've missed since 5 set finals were ditched.

 

[TommyA8X]

No, the aim of the WTF is to separate the Top 8. It force those that won GS without facing big names to prove themselves against the top players. It's not really a "real" tournament. It's to force the top players to fight for more points that it probably worth to differentiate themselves against H2H and guarantee top matches. In today's game where 6-7 of the Top 8 make the Qtr, it's a bit mute.

In my eyes it's a spectacle rather than a tournament and is artificially over rated to ensure attendance/effort. If it was not compulsory I can see a lot of players ignoring it except where it's point weighting can make a difference in ranks for some. It is a requiement to be considered a seirious No.1 contender.

In my eyes it's lost a lot since the 70's and early 80's. But that was more due to the hate and dislike between the players and their desire for money. The prize money of the tournament makes no real difference to top 8 real income. The points effect a player income more but for several of these players they have little chance to significantly change their ranking.

End of the day it's a fast exo tournament where half the players can turn up for a week and leave with little pay and no additional points with the remaining potentially swapping end of year rankings.

It's always felt contrived to me like most EXO's. There's a doco on you tube with Fed, Hewit, ARod era which gives the impression it's all a bit "whatever". Definitively not a Major or Masters feel.

Please post that video. I'd definitely love to see it.

Also, :lol: at the "it's an exhibition" nonsense.

Some pretty serious celebration for a contrived exhibition

 

[TheMusicLover]

Would love more best of 5 finals. Wonder how many Rome 2005's we've missed since 5 set finals were ditched.

And Rome 2006...
I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[m2nk2]

Would love more best of 5 finals. Wonder how many Rome 2005's we've missed since 5 set finals were ditched.

Don't care so much for WTF as it's an exhibition tournament with ATP points (Yes, I went there 2 years ago, never again).

But I do agree that Masters finals should be best of 5!

 

[NatF]

Don't care so much for WTF as it's an exhibition tournament with ATP points (Yes, I went there 2 years ago, never again).

But I do agree that Masters finals should be best of 5!

An exhibition tournament by definition does not give ranking points.

But anyway, yes masters need Bo5 finals, even 500 series tournaments and the likes had some Bo5 finals 10 years ago.

 

[vanioMan]

Seconded.

10WTFs

Yeah. At least that.

Thirded :mrgreen:

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

5 set SF and F with a day off in between is the only change I would make.

Seconded.

10WTFs

Yeah. At least that.

Thirded :mrgreen:

fourthed, quarted, tetrated or whatever.
(at least a bo5 final, please !)

as for the original suggestion, no offense but...

by the way, they've already tried a certain number of "formulas" for this tournament, and in the 1971 edition they had a unique RR group with 7 players:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Pepsi-Cola_Masters_–_Singles

 

[Crisstti]

Would love more best of 5 finals. Wonder how many Rome 2005's we've missed since 5 set finals were ditched.

Yes, it really is a pity :neutral:

 

[Alien]

I agree with the 5 sets finals for MS1000s.

As for the idea for WTF, I dont like it. Once players cannot win the tournament, a lot of uninteresting matches will take place, players will have no motivation and are tiree and will become boring.

I kind of like it as it is, maybe include #9 and #10 could work. However we still have to make it fit a single week.

Just get rid of those photo sessions with everybody dressed alike please.

 

[abmk]

Make the final a best of 5 ( and maybe SFs too ) ...and speed up the surface FFS ( it was ok in 09 and 10, but its slowed down since then )

that's about it ...

 

[TommyA8X]

Make the final a best of 5 ( and maybe SFs too ) ...and speed up the surface FFS ( it was ok in 09 and 10, but its slowed down since then )

that's about it ...

It was always a slow-ish surface. It's the bounce that got higher in past few years.

Agreed on the final being bo5. It'd be hard to it for semis though.

 

[TennisCJC]

I like the current format. The only change I would like to see is faster courts.

 

[tacou]

To be honest I stopped reading after 28 matches. That is not a good way to go about it.

Though it did give me an idea to re seed after the RR stage and play a full QF lineup opposed to eliminating half the field. Still, meh

 

[augustobt]

The actual format and location of WTF is perfect.

 

[spirit95]

Would love more best of 5 finals. Wonder how many Rome 2005's we've missed since 5 set finals were ditched.

At least three or four.

What is the rationale behind ditching 5 set finals again?

 

[AngieB]

The only thing which would bolster the standing of the #WTF would be the added #sanction of the #ITF, which #isn't going to happen #anytime #soon, or #later for that matter.

Its #current #format gives the #perception of an #exhibition which is #another reason the #ITF would never #sanction the #event.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Scrap the RR format and make it a QF-SF-F format, to replicate the Grand Slams..


This would also shut those "exhibition" people up..

 

[The Harkleroad]

At least three or four.

What is the rationale behind ditching 5 set finals again?

Usually TV is the reason for shortening matches- the tiebreakers, no tiebreak in the 5th set at the US Open, super tiebreak in doubles, time violations (?) etc.

and probably because of the two epic Rome finals in 2005 and 2006. Nadal beat Coria 7-6 in the 5th set in 2005 and then pulled out of Hamburg because of fatigue and blisters. In 2006 Nadal beat Fed 7-6 in the 5th and both pulled out of Hamburg because of fatigue.

The tour can't afford the withdrawals of players like Fed and Nadal because of these 5 set matches. The removal of BO5 matches were to protect the tour and "protect" the star players.


OT:
+1 on the removal of RR. There's no sense of urgency in some of the matches because there are instances when some losses have no effect on the standings. There are scenarios where some players can tank to "choose" the oppopent for the SF. Players can also tank matches against stronger opponents to conserve energy for weaker opponents.

I don't know if this is still used but i don't want to see alternates take the place of injured players once the tournament starts.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I thought about this last night after watching darts (Premier League).

Basically, what my idea is - instead of having two groups each consisting of 4 players, followed by semis and finals, we again take the top 8 guys but have them play against each other once. Straight set wins will grant 3 points, three set wins - 2 points, three set losses - 1 point and straight set losses - 0 points.

This would make a total of 28 matches played. I've thought about 3 options after these matches are finished:

A. The guy with most points is declared as the champion. If #1 and #2 and even, then they play each other to define the overall winner.

B. The guys ranked #1 and #2 play each other in a final, regardless of how many points they have.

C. Take the top 4 guys with most points and have a random draw to make two semifinals, the winners of which will contest in the final.

My big concern with this is the fact that WTF is played in the end of the season and I'm sure whether players will have enough gas in the tank for so many matches. Another thing is that this kind of format will probably take 10-14 days to be finished.

What could be done is, have this format every other year and put another week of rest between Paris and London. And also have Davis Cup every other year.

Disclaimer: I'm not seriously saying this change should be made or implemented. Just some food for thought.

On paper it sounds good and fair but like you said no chance the players would let this happen, too exhausting for them, poor things

 

[sbengte]

It force those that won GS without facing big names to prove themselves against the top players.

End of the day it's a fast exo tournament where half the players can turn up for a week and leave with little pay and no additional points with the remaining potentially swapping end of year rankings.

So you are ok with players winning GS with cake draws and barely any competition but a tournament which tests the real mettle of top players by pitching them against the rest of the top 8 is an exho ?

Ok, whatever :lol: