ATP to Use RR Format in 13 Events in 2007

[FiveO]

ATP to Test RR Format in 13 Events in 2007

http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2006/robin.asp

ATP Outlines Round Robin Format Trials for 2007

* Thirteen ATP tournaments selected for round robin testing

* Three formats to be monitored to determine benefits for fans, broadcasters, others

* Sunday Starts also will be featured at several of the selected tournaments

The ATP announced today that it will test three different round robin formats at select circuit events in 2007. Round robin format is one of a series of on-court enhancements for 2007 outlined during the US Open to improve the tournament experience for players, tennis fans, broadcasters and event promoters.

Round robin—where players are placed into groups or pools, and the top player in each group then moves on to the knockout phase of the tournament—increases spectators’ chances of seeing their favorite stars, as one loss in a round-robin pool does not automatically eliminate a player, and also improves scheduling for broadcasters and tournament promotion. Round robin has been a staple of the Tennis Masters Cup circuit finale and ARAG ATP World Team Championship but not utilized at any other ATP tournament. The 13 tournaments chosen subject to final approval by the ATP will be held on different surfaces in different countries throughout the 2007 season, starting the first week in Adelaide, Australia.

“Our research with fans, tournaments and media indicate a preference for round robin,” said Etienne de Villiers (pictured above), ATP Executive Chairman & President. “We are committed to grow the appeal of the sport and get more fans to sample and enjoy. We are going to test different formats and see which ones we will introduce and into what type of event for 2008. It is the 'do it, try it, fix it' approach. I recognise some players and media are opposed or indifferent. But we will diligently build our research based on the results and do what's best for the fans. You live or die by your what your consumer does, not by what critics say or feel.”

ATP World No. 2 Rafael Nadal said: “I have said it at our meetings with Etienne, I think this is a great idea. Finally we really move forward and we do something really good for our sport. This will be good for our tournaments, for us the players and especially for fans and television since they will be able to have and see their favorite players more than once for sure.”

The ATP will conduct its one-year trial testing the three following formats:

· A 24-player round robin draw consisting of 8 groups of 3 players. Each player will then play two guaranteed matches in the round robin stage. The winner from each group will advance to the knockout round (quarterfinals), and then will play out the tournament per a traditional single-elimination format.

· A 32-player round robin draw consisting of a 16-player “play-off” with the 8 winners joining 16 other players to make up the 8 groups of 3 players. Each player will then play two guaranteed matches in the round robin stage. The winner from each group will advance to the knockout round (quarterfinals), and then will play out the tournament per a traditional single-elimination format.

· A 48-player round robin draw consisting of 16 groups of 3 players. Each player will then play two guaranteed matches in the round robin stage. The winner from each group will advance to the knockout round (round of 16), and then will play out the tournament per a traditional single-elimination format.

Many of the tournaments will be held over eight days and will begin not on the traditional Monday but on Sunday, when ATP tournaments will feature singles and doubles matches, pro-ams, charity events and family activities as part of the ATP’s plan to transform men’s professional tennis into an integrated entertainment business based on what makes sense to fans, players, tournaments and media.

Additionally, two ATP Masters Series tournaments have been chosen to utilize a Sunday Start program in 2007 (though ATP Masters Series will not test the round robin format). Those two Masters events are the Masters Series Monte-Carlo (April 15-22, 2007) and Rogers Masters in Montreal (August 5-12, 2007).

The 13 tournaments testing round robin in 2007, subject to final ATP and tournament agreement, will be (listed chronologically):


· Next Generation Adelaide International; Adelaide, Australia; 32-player round robin; hard court outdoors
· Movistar Open; Viña del Mar, Chile; 24-player round robin; clay court outdoors
· Delray Beach International Tennis Championships; Delray Beach, Florida; 32-player round robin; hard court outdoors
· Copa Telmex; Buenos Aires, Argentina; 32-player round robin; clay court outdoors
· Tennis Channel Open; Las Vegas, Nevada; 32-player round robin; hard court outdoors
· Estoril Open; Estoril, Portugal; 32-player round robin; clay court outdoors
· The Stella Artois Championships; London, United Kingdom; 48-player round robin; grass court outdoors
· Catella Swedish Open; Båstad, Sweden; 32-player round robin; clay court outdoors
· Campbell’s Hall of Fame Tennis Championships; Newport, Rhode Island; 24-player round robin; grass court outdoors
· RCA Championships; Indianapolis, Indiana; 32-player round robin; hard court outdoors
· ATP Studena Croatia Open, Umag, Croatia; 32-player round robin; clay court outdoors
· Legg Mason Tennis Classic; Washington, D.C.; 48-player round robin; hard court outdoors
· If Stockholm Open; Stockholm, Sweden; 32-player round robin; hard court indoors


"This is a great day for tennis," said Mark Baron, tournament director of the Delray Beach International Tennis Championships. "It's exciting for Delray Beach to open the 2007 tennis season in the United States by rolling out this new round robin format. We have been discussing creative ways to make our sport even more exciting and this format delivers a chance to test some of those ideas. Our fans are the big winners because they'll have the opportunity to see our marquee players at least twice. The round robin portion of the tournament will be exciting to follow as players jockey for positions into the quarterfinals."

Personally I don't see any advantage to the format change or any added fan friendliness aside from the Sunday starts.

 

[Andres]

No... no. It's not going to work. Personally, I think it's wrong.
But no one gives a **** about my opinion, so... who cares?

I'll probably go to ATP Buenos Aires next year, as usual... ok... MORE MATCHES, but the whole "tournament" structure is gone :?

 

[FedFan_2007]

Fed doesn't play any of these small tournaments anywayz...

 

[FiveO]

What if:

A def. B
B def. C
C def. A

A 1-1
B 1-1
C 1-1

What are the group tie breaks after the RR? Set count? Game count? What?

I see a gimmick likely to produce problems with no real upside.

The ATP should have addressed surface shifts by season tour wide instead IMO. In other words everyone plays on like surfaces, clay, hard, grass or carpet, each week during each surface season so no one can duck one surface to play another event on their favorite surface.

 

[Lleytian3]

What if:

A def. B
B def. C
C def. A

A 1-1
B 1-1
C 1-1

What are the group tie breaks after the RR? Set count? Game count? What?

I see a gimmick likely to produce problems with no real upside.

The ATP should have addressed surface shifts by season tour wide instead IMO. In other words everyone plays on like surfaces, clay, hard, grass or carpet, each week during each surface season so no one can duck one surface to play another event on their favorite surface.

Exactly what i was thinking. Then what are they going to do. do it by a WTT format, where sets and games determine you to move on.

Tennis masters works differently, where the top 2 from each group moves on, thats why it works fine.

Persoanlly, they better have a much better RR format than they one they just put forward. i mean, yea we can see our favorite players more, but then at what cost.

It started with sideline coaching on the WTA and now we come to this. Tennis is slowly losing itself, to try and gain popularity. screw it. Tennis is all about leaving everythin on the court, and doing it by yourself. If players know they can lose yet still progress to the "main draw". what good is that. How are they going to do the seeds and stuff?

too much questions the ATP left unanswered, they better know what they are doing, or else its going to blow up and backfire right up their ***

 

[sureshs]

Doesn't this reduce the number of players in the draw, providing less opportunities for upcoming players? When Federer was around 300, he beat Moya, who was in the top 5. With these formats, he may never have played him. They say fans want to see the big names all the time, but what kind of fans? I personally like to have a bigger pool and see new faces (I am tired of Fed and Nadal). Tennis pros may give up if they think they stand no chance.

 

[tennisboy87]

Yeah, I'm not sure this new format is going to fly. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[FiveO]

Doesn't this reduce the number of players in the draw, providing less opportunities for upcoming players? When Federer was around 300, he beat Moya, who was in the top 5. With these formats, he may never have played him. They say fans want to see the big names all the time, but what kind of fans? I personally like to have a bigger pool and see new faces (I am tired of Fed and Nadal). Tennis pros may give up if they think they stand no chance.

Good point. Where do the Q's, WC's and LL's feed into?

 

[Starlite]

This is such a horrible idea! Etienne deVilliers better wake up. The fans don't like, nor do the players, it really does not make sense to me. Hopefully this will die out soon.

Grrr... I'm upset that the Washington tourny is one of the RR experiments . Maybe it'll die out before the summer and they'll go back to normal.

 

[jmsx521]

“Our research with fans, tournaments and media indicate a preference for round robin,” said Etienne de Villiers ... ATP Executive Chairman & President.

How was the research done? They need to research TW Forums and will find out most people are against it.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

“Our research with fans, tournaments and media indicate a preference for round robin,” said Etienne de Villiers ... ATP Executive Chairman & President.

How was the research done? They need to research TW Forums and will find out most people are against it.

right...
i also don't like this idea.
would be interesting to ask to the ATP and to this de villiers guy how they made this research...... i want the stats !
maybe they have a sample of one specimen among the players (nadal) and one among the fans (etienne mickey de villiers) !

 

[bigserving]

I applaud the ATP for trying something new to grow the game. Something needs to be done to make the game more appealing to the casual fan.

Most fans simply do not want to see lowly ranked players. They want to see only the top few. I enjoy watching them but the fact of the matter is that most do not. Casual fans know only know of the very top players. The new format will ensure that more of the top players are on display for television viewing fans. More of the top players will be playing more matches for the ticket-buying fan.

In this era of technology and hundreds of channels, the Tennis Channel is not even popular enough to be available to most people. Something needs to be done to grow the popularity of tennis. These steps may help.

 

[tennisnj]

How long until the RR format trickles down to the USTA leagues & tournaments, or the college & H.S. levels? What's next? 8 game pro-sets? It's bad enough they've made the 3rd set in many doubles tournaments a 'super-tiebreaker.', & many amateur leagues & tournaments have followed suit.

 

[FiveO]

What the game needs is promotion. Those fannies in the seats are going to be there and remain occupied by the fans with or without substantively changing the format. Changing the very nature of single elimination round formats is screwing with the history of the sport. The PGA is popular because they have marketed their most marketable comodity, Tiger Woods, not by having cheerleaders behind the ropes, or passing out rally caps at the venues.

The ATP needs to promote to compete not change the essence of the competition. It needs exposure on TV especially in the US where it has been eroded and eclipsed by golf, NASCAR and a ridiculous number of televised "Texas Hold 'Em" tournaments. Promote the game and the stars and their accomplishments and you will attract more fans. It takes money to make money. Spend it (wisely) and they will come.

 

[Deleted member 6835]

i think you guys are dumb i think its a great idea, because its a lot funner for everyone (players, media, fans, etc.) and it doesnt mean that just because you had one off day in the first round your gone from a tourney. it will make for a much more relaxed atmosphere for the players because they arent pressured to win or be eliminated which will lead to an increase in the quality of play. plus it would get really exciting, especially with the knockout phases. kind of like soccer (football).

i dont see any down sides

 

[DashaandSafin]

I see the upsides (which have been mentioned) and the down side (which also has been mentioned).

Personally, I feel that it would be good for smaller tourtaments, but hey, you cant put a Masters, hell, even an International Series toureny in RR.

 

[bigserving]

One advantage that the PGA has over tennis is that fans get to watch all of the top players play four full rounds from Thursday thru Sunday in most every major. In tennis, come Saturday, there are only four players left. Sunday, it is down to only two.

It one or both of the final two players is not a big name, the match will not draw interest or gain ratings.

Those of us who watch pro tennis in person, we would rather see Roddick, Nadal, Fed, Blake, and a few other of our own personal favorites play every match. We can promote the game all we want, but if number 25 is playing number 45, tv viewers will continue tune in to watch something else.

 

[OnceWas]

ATP Jackasses should hire competent people to promote their game. Not sit around trying to figure out how to change it.. Jackasses..

 

[tennisnj]

Relaxed atmosphere? That's what the practice courts & exhibitions are for! Matches in which there is no pressure to win? Then why are you a professional? That's where these tournaments are going to run into tankings, withdrawals & defaults. It's going to lead to a decrease in the quality of play, with players knowing exactly what they need to advance to the next round, & playing to those numbers rather than trying to win a match (& possibly expending too much energy). WIN OR GO HOME!

 

[Jonny S&V]

People didn't like the tiebreak system, but once they gave it a chance, everyone loves it (although the majority grew up with it). Give it a chance. The players are the ones to decide this, not us anyway. If they don't like it, they just tell that "council of active players" (can't think of name) and they'll make an arguement with the ITF. Although, I don't like the 3rd set tiebreak in doubles either.

 

[Raistlin]

I think the fact that Nadal endorses it has something to with it:mrgreen:

 

[Elina]

Although I don't personally like all these changes in tennis I'm quite looking forward this round robin experiment. I think it's good that they test several types of it, so we know better what works (if any of these work) after next year.

 

[hyperwarrior]

I don't like it at all. Changing the format = destroys the tradition.
I'm quite conservative. They should sit down and think about HOW to promote the game without those sacrifices

I'm conservative on that and I'm glad Fed has changes his mind.

 

[alienhamster]

What if:

A def. B
B def. C
C def. A

A 1-1
B 1-1
C 1-1

What are the group tie breaks after the RR? Set count? Game count? What?

I see a gimmick likely to produce problems with no real upside.

The ATP should have addressed surface shifts by season tour wide instead IMO. In other words everyone plays on like surfaces, clay, hard, grass or carpet, each week during each surface season so no one can duck one surface to play another event on their favorite surface.

Agree about the surface issues. The escape to clay during the American hardcourt season drives me nuts. But, sadly, I think they've completely given up on grass ever being a real "season."

But the round robin count will probably be exactly like the Masters Cup, right? If there's a tie, go by total sets won. If there's still a tie, then go by number of games.

I'm curious to see how this goes (though still skeptical), and I'm very glad they didn't touch the MS tournaments or the Slams.

 

[Oricus]

Worst Idea tennis has come up with in a long time.

Lets just see now when the Wimbledon's of tennis go to this format.

It's a great format for the Year Ending championship, you have to qualify throughout the year to get to it and it's not the normal setup. But that is for the best players in the world and *one* event.

When I first heard about this earlier this summer I was completely irate. I'm thinking, this is the dumbest idea someone has come up with in a long while. These are smaller tournaments yes, this is where younger players rise up through the ranks. But now, given in to the pressures of marketing top players, in which they'll likely only get second rate players anyways. Just leaves some void, I hate tinkering to this level. One can only imagine if this trickles into larger master series events. What would that do? Alienate a large portion of the tennis community.

Think about it, the Masters becoming these Round Robbin events, that would be some elite club of the best players that only get to play in them. Some I guess would obviously like that, but in reality, is that beneficial for the future of tennis? It works for a little while and then what happens? A potential drop off in either talent or interest because it makes it that much harder to breakthrough because the tournaments go to Round Robbin formats considerably dropping the field to a select few?

I feel bad for the up and coming tennis players, and 13 events is a lot for a first year. What we can only hope for is that this bottoms out. It is a dumb idea and hopefully it will be treated as one.

 

[Fedexeon]

No, this idea will help the tour.

It has cons but its not that bad either.
As long as they don't apply this to Masters Series events or Grandslam, i'm ok with it.

 

[jukka1970]

too many problems with this format. I also don't think it belongs in professional level tennis. There's a reason why tournaments have qualifying rounds. I think this format will hurt players more then help them.

Jukka

 

[Shabazza]

Well, I don't like it period!
All the top players are whining about too many tournaments too many matches, yet these RR format has the same amount of matches played for a smaller field!
A 48 RR draw has the same amount of matches as a 64 knock-out field. which means where you have 5 matches for the finalists in 7 days atm., you'll have 6 matches in a 48 draw and 7 matches in a 64 draw. Am I missing the point here?
And the top seeds won't have a bye anymore which means, say Nadal wins the FO in a five set thriller against Federer on Sunday - Queen's starts on Sunday as a RR, which means he has to play on Monday and if he wan'ts to win has to play 6 matches in 6 days - I can't believe he's pro RR-format!
Another question: how do they award the points for the RR-robin losers?

 

[ag24]

As FiveO says, the RR system (any RR system, in fact) needs a tie-break. (A system where two players out of four progress still needs this: consider the case where three players cycle and the fourth beats them all, or alternatively loses to them all.) This is an immense downside: games that have always been simple win-loss change their character completely when the margin of victory starts to be taken into account in some way.

The question, then, is whether a system can be devised in which:

- all the top players play at least two matches
- no player plays more than six matches
- at least 24 players take part, preferably more
- the tournament can be completed in a week
- no tie-breaks are needed

After a bit of juggling I conclude that the following seems promising:

- 28 players, 10 seeded.

- the top 6 seeds and 6 non-seeds are placed in "Group A"; seeds 7 to 10 and the remaining 12 players in "Group B".

- Group B play three knockout rounds, giving two survivors who go through to the quarter-finals.

- Group A play one normal round, but then in round 2 not only do the r1 winners play each other as usual but also the r1 losers play each other.

- in Group A there is then a third round in which the three players who won in round 1 and lost in round 2 play the three who lost in round 1 and won in round 2. Those who lost in both r1 and r2 are eliminated; those who won in both r1 and r2 move straight into the quarter-finals.

- Group A thus provides six players for the quarter-finals: three who won in both rounds 1 and 2 and three who won exactly one of rounds 1 and 2 and also won in round 3.

- quarter-finals and beyond as normal, featuring six players from group A and two from group B.

This appears to work quite well. The top six seeds (the people the broadcasters and promoters care about) are guaranteed to play at least two matches; if they win both they sit out round 3 so have only five matches, same as in knockout 32-player events; no one is required to play an excessive number of matches (six is the max); only eight players play only one match (namely, the ones who lost in r1 in Group B); non-seeds have a 1-in-3 chance of being in the lucky Group A that is guaranteed two matches; a total of 36 matches occur in the tournament; the tournament as a whole is only six rounds (the new 32-player format is seven rounds, even though nobody plays more than six matches); and, critically, no tie-breaking is needed.

I can see only three small drawbacks of this format relative to the new 32-player format. One is that only 28 players take part; that is arguably a small price to pay to avoid needing tie-breaks. The second is that the system can't quite ensure that people don't play each other twice in the tournament - but it comes very close, especially if the quarter-finals are paired only after round 3. The third is that only six seeds and six non-seeds are guaranteed two games, against eight and eight in the new RR system - but I bet promoters and broadcasters care only slightly about seeds 7 and lower.

There are many variations on the above theme of course - distribution of seeds is the main degree of freedom. In a longer tournament the obvious doubling of all numbers might be varied so that, for example, group A provides 10 players for the last 16 (from a starting size of 20) and group B provides 6 from 48.

Views?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

most of the players against the RR idea...

http://www.sports.fr/fr/cmc/tennis/200644/clement-le-ras-le-bol-_112268.html
(sorry, i didn't find it in english...)

Clément, le ras-le-bol !
31/10/2006

Par PIERRE-GILLES HUOT
De Sports.fr, à Bercy

En marge de sa victoire sur Nicolas Massu 6-1, 6-4 au premier tour du Masters Series de Paris, Arnaud Clément, qui n'est jamais avare en bons mots, a poussé un coup de gueule contre le système actuel du circuit. L'Aixois dénonce d'une part l'absence de décisions faciles à prendre pour éviter le surmenage des joueurs, et d'autre part le manque de communication des décisionnaires du circuit qui ne consultent pas suffisamment les joueurs, notamment sur le système des poules qui seront mis en place en 2007.

Clément est très remonté.Le sourire aux lèvres, Arnaud Clément est toujours heureux lorsqu'il déambule dans les couloirs de Bercy. Un tournoi qu'il adore disputer et auquel il a participé chaque année depuis 1997, mis à part en 2003. "Il peut y avoir des ambiances de dingue ici", explique-t-il, l'oeil pétillant. "Nadal ou pas Nadal, Federer ou pas Federer, j'ai toujours connu une super ambiance à Bercy." Un esprit bon enfant, qui ne lui fait toutefois pas oublier les problèmes auxquels sont confrontés les joueurs sur le circuit...

Invité à donner son point de vue sur la cascade de forfaits qui a une nouvelle fois décimé ce grand rendez-vous de fin d'année, Arnaud Clément s'est soudainement emballé en poussant un véritable coup de gueule: "Il y a des choses vraiment hallucinantes. Pourquoi continue-t-on à faire jouer la finale de Bâle en cinq sets juste avant Bercy ? Si la finale avait été en trois sets gagnants, Federer se serait économisé et aurait peut-être pu venir à Paris. Qui sait ? Ce genre de choses, c'est vraiment facile à régler, avant de vouloir faire des réformes de fond."

"ll faut faire quoi ? Un boycott, la révolution ?"

Quant au système de poules qui sera mis en place pour quelques tournois à partir de la saison prochaine, l'Aixois a aussi son mot à dire et un message à faire passer: "Tous les joueurs avec qui j'ai évoqué le sujet, aucun n'était pour les poules. Le problème, c'est que je n'ai pas l'impression que ma voix compte. Il faut faire quoi pour qu'on nous entende ? Un boycott, la révolution ? La voix d'un gars classé 40e ne compte malheureusement pas ! Les poules, je trouve ça mauvais. Je ne vois pas en quoi ça va aider. Je ne vois aucun intérêt pour personne. Le tennis, ce n'est pas des matches de Ligue des Champions ! Ce système de poules ne m'excite pas personnellement, mais peut-être que les gens vont aimer voir un joueur se faire éliminer deux fois..."

Sur sa lancée, la Clé continue de dire avec sincérité ce qu'il a sur le coeur: "On est là chaque semaine, c'est facile de faire circuler un papier avec 'Etes-vous pour ou contre tel ou tel projet?'. Au lieu de ça, nous les joueurs, on n'a même pas été informé précisément sur le sujet !" Le malaise est en tous les cas bien profond et les instances de l'ATP et de l'ITF ne peuvent pas l'ignorer...

some points :
- clement says it's absurd that the basel final was best-of-5 just before a masters-series (obviously this is going to change, which is a good point)
- all the players that he asked about the RR project were against it !
- he complains that decisions are taken without consulting the players, that it would not be complicated to simply give them a paper asking if they are in favor or against something...
etc. etc.

as a certain player says :
mister devilliers... << you're very bad >>

 

[NewBallsPlease]

I think the fact that Nadal endorses it has something to with it:mrgreen:

Funny that he endorsed this format where he might have to play an extra match or two considering that he's fatigued and he barely plays the second half of the year. He might change his mind, no?

 

[radon8]

Personally I think it's a bad idea. For the past few years there's been a perception (mostly american) that the game needs 'help'. After the Conners/Johnny Mac era the USTA went out of their way to take the 'rough edges' out of the sport. No swearing, no racquet throwing, no passion. Sampras may have won the most grand slams but for me he was never going to drive viewer ratings. The game needs marketing, promotion and passion, not new rules and formats. The USTA has no idea who the fans are and they're not interested in what the players have to say. I have no idea what planet the ATP is on and I know some people in upper management in television programming and they're usually not the sharpest tools in the shed. I would start looking at these other things before messing with the game.