Bad move for Thiem

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro
I'm sure I am not the only one thinking he wasn't giving his 100% today. Anyway we can all agree he was playing much better in his first 2 matches. I don't think it's necesseraly a good thing. Sure he was already qualified for the SF, no matter what. But I don't think it benefits him at all.

- It was 200 easy ATP points to get. It represents more than an ATP250 final. If he aspires to compete with the top-3 next year, it could be important.
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
- More important, he may (or likely WILL) end up 2nd of his group. He won 4 sets and lost 3. If Djokovic wins (even in 3) he is sure to be 1st of his group. If Federer wins in 2, he is 1st too. The only way Thiem can remain 1st of his group is if Federer wins in 3 sets (and still, it would depend on the game average...) It means Thiem will have to face the 1st of the other group in SF (Likely Tsitsipas). The winner of Federer/Djokovic will be against the 2nd of the other group (Likely Nadal or Zverev)

Funny, after his win against Djokovic, I said Thiem has chances to win the tournament... Now I think Federer Djokovic and Tsitsipas have better chances.
 

pedro94

Rookie
I'm sure I am not the only one thinking he wasn't giving his 100% today. Anyway we can all agree he was playing much better in his first 2 matches. I don't think it's necesseraly a good thing. Sure he was already qualified for the SF, no matter what. But I don't think it benefits him at all.

- It was 200 easy ATP points to get. It represents more than an ATP250 final. If he aspires to compete with the top-3 next year, it could be important.
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
- More important, he may (or likely WILL) end up 2nd of his group. He won 4 sets and lost 3. If Djokovic wins (even in 3) he is sure to be 1st of his group. If Federer wins in 2, he is 1st too. The only way Thiem can remain 1st of his group is if Federer wins in 3 sets (and still, it would depend on the game average...) It means Thiem will have to face the 1st of the other group in SF (Likely Tsitsipas). The winner of Federer/Djokovic will be against the 2nd of the other group (Likely Nadal or Zverev)

Funny, after his win against Djokovic, I said Thiem has chances to win the tournament... Now I think Federer Djokovic and Tsitsipas have better chances.
The first tie-break applied when 2 players are on the same number of points is the head-to-head, so whatever Djokovic/Federer do today, even if one of them wins 6-0, 6-0, Thiem will finish 1st in his group because he's got a positive head-to-head with both of them.
 

PerilousPear

Semi-Pro
Sets/games are looked into only in the case of a 3-way tie in wins. Either Djokovic or Federer will end up on 2 wins as Thiem. The tiebreaker is h2h, and Thiem beat both
 

blablavla

Legend
I'm sure I am not the only one thinking he wasn't giving his 100% today. Anyway we can all agree he was playing much better in his first 2 matches. I don't think it's necesseraly a good thing. Sure he was already qualified for the SF, no matter what. But I don't think it benefits him at all.

- It was 200 easy ATP points to get. It represents more than an ATP250 final. If he aspires to compete with the top-3 next year, it could be important.
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
- More important, he may (or likely WILL) end up 2nd of his group. He won 4 sets and lost 3. If Djokovic wins (even in 3) he is sure to be 1st of his group. If Federer wins in 2, he is 1st too. The only way Thiem can remain 1st of his group is if Federer wins in 3 sets (and still, it would depend on the game average...) It means Thiem will have to face the 1st of the other group in SF (Likely Tsitsipas). The winner of Federer/Djokovic will be against the 2nd of the other group (Likely Nadal or Zverev)

Funny, after his win against Djokovic, I said Thiem has chances to win the tournament... Now I think Federer Djokovic and Tsitsipas have better chances.
isn't H2H first deciding factor when 2 players are tied?
only 1 player can tie Thiem with 2 wins, either Djokovic, or Federer.
He defeated both of them.
So, how could Thiem end up on the second place?

Now, if in a group there are 3 players who are tied at 2 wins and only 2 shall go further to the SF, the H2H won't help much.
Same, if in a group 3 players are tied at 1 win, and only 1 player can proceed to the SF, the H2H won't help much.
 
D

Deleted member 763691

Guest
Thiem will already be exhausted by the Final if he makes it (and may have to play Djokovic again), so there was no point in putting full energy in today :)
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Maybe he wants to play Nadal in semi after seeing his form ;)
Seriously, he beat Fed and Djoko back to back and the Djoko match was intense. Keeping reserves for semi makes a lot of sense.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Maybe he wants to play Nadal in semi after seeing his form ;)
Seriously, he beat Fed and Djoko back to back and the Djoko match was intense. Keeping reserves for semi makes a lot of sense.
So basically you are saying Thiem is saving his energy for Nadal in the SF, if he makes it, so he can pull off a Nalbandian in 07 and beat all three? :D
 

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro
Sets/games are looked into only in the case of a 3-way tie in wins. Either Djokovic or Federer will end up on 2 wins as Thiem. The tiebreaker is h2h, and Thiem beat both
Okay, I didn't know. So Thiem's set-average his 4-3, but even if Djokovic wins in 2 and has a set-average of 5-2, Thiem would still be 1st because he won the match against him? That's a dumb rule IMO. A player who wins 2 matches in 2 and loses 1 in 3 should be ahead of a player who won 1 in 3 and lost 1 in 2.

So I guess it means Djokovic/Federer will face Tsitsipas and Thiem will face Nadal or Zverev...
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence.
Thiem just beat two men who have won this event 11 times between them and are both ATG's. His confidence should be sky high and losing to Berrettini is no issue. Comparing him to Fed and Djokovic is like comparing an anthill to Mt. Everest. Lendl strategically tanked matches at the Nabisco Masters (previous name for the YEC) and it behooved him to do so.
 

I Am Finnish

Talk Tennis Guru
Okay, I didn't know. So Thiem's set-average his 4-3, but even if Djokovic wins in 2 and has a set-average of 5-2, Thiem would still be 1st because he won the match against him? That's a dumb rule IMO. A player who wins 2 matches in 2 and loses 1 in 3 should be ahead of a player who won 1 in 3 and lost 1 in 2.

So I guess it means Djokovic/Federer will face Tsitsipas and Thiem will face Nadal or Zverev...
Yes it doesnt make sense at all

Imo Sets ratio is more important than h2h
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
I'm sure I am not the only one thinking he wasn't giving his 100% today. Anyway we can all agree he was playing much better in his first 2 matches. I don't think it's necesseraly a good thing. Sure he was already qualified for the SF, no matter what. But I don't think it benefits him at all.

- It was 200 easy ATP points to get. It represents more than an ATP250 final. If he aspires to compete with the top-3 next year, it could be important.
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
- More important, he may (or likely WILL) end up 2nd of his group. He won 4 sets and lost 3. If Djokovic wins (even in 3) he is sure to be 1st of his group. If Federer wins in 2, he is 1st too. The only way Thiem can remain 1st of his group is if Federer wins in 3 sets (and still, it would depend on the game average...) It means Thiem will have to face the 1st of the other group in SF (Likely Tsitsipas). The winner of Federer/Djokovic will be against the 2nd of the other group (Likely Nadal or Zverev)

Funny, after his win against Djokovic, I said Thiem has chances to win the tournament... Now I think Federer Djokovic and Tsitsipas have better chances.
He saved energy and didn't hurt himself. Now he can focus on giving his normal 100,000% in the SF which he will need.

Smart move for Thiem to go 75% today.
 
Okay, I didn't know. So Thiem's set-average his 4-3, but even if Djokovic wins in 2 and has a set-average of 5-2, Thiem would still be 1st because he won the match against him? That's a dumb rule IMO. A player who wins 2 matches in 2 and loses 1 in 3 should be ahead of a player who won 1 in 3 and lost 1 in 2.

So I guess it means Djokovic/Federer will face Tsitsipas and Thiem will face Nadal or Zverev...
Head to head is a very stupid tiebreaker. It shouldn't be used at all, let alone before sets percentage.
 

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro
If Nadal beats Tsitsipas and Medvedev beats Zverev, Nadal will finish 1st and it's a Fedal/Djokodal SF
Thanks! You're correct. Ugh, these RR rules are so twisted. Each year I think I understood everything, only to realize I have not.

If I understand well, if Z beats M, N is eliminated for sure. If M beats Z and T beats N, Nadal - with his bad set-average- would be gone for sure. And if N beats T and M beats Z, then Nadal is #1... So in brief, Nadal can't finish 2nd?? Either he is gone or he is #1st and has pla against F or D. Nadal-Thiem in SF isn't a possibility, so??
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
So basically you are saying Thiem is saving his energy for Nadal in the SF, if he makes it, so he can pull off a Nalbandian in 07 and beat all three? :D
No scenario exists where Thiem plays Nadal at SF stage.;) If Nadal qualifies he will play winner of Djoko/Fed and Thiem and Tsits live happily every after in other SF.
 

van_Loederen

Professional
He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
oh look, we got a little hobby psychologist over here. 8-B
why would he lose his confidence if he knows he didn't give his all?
and it was a relatively close match, so why would he lose his rhythm?
 

Tennisfan339

Semi-Pro
oh look, we got a little hobby psychologist over here. 8-B
why would he lose his confidence if he knows he didn't give his all?
and it was a relatively close match, so why would he lose his rhythm?
I have seen this scenario many times, with the WTA finals especially. Tenniswomen who win the first 2 matches and are already qualified for the SF. They either tank the 3rd match or absolutely want to win it, but lose long matches in 3 sets and are exhausted for the SF. Both scenarios happen. When they play the SF, they're either exhausted or lost confidence...

Look at Anderson last year FI. He won his first 2 matches in straight sets against Nishikori and Thiem. I'm not saying he lost against Federer on purpose but he kind of lost his rhythm in the SF against Djokovic. Ok, maybe it isn't the best example but either way, losing the 3rd RR match is rarely a good thing.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I'm sure I am not the only one thinking he wasn't giving his 100% today. Anyway we can all agree he was playing much better in his first 2 matches. I don't think it's necesseraly a good thing. Sure he was already qualified for the SF, no matter what. But I don't think it benefits him at all.

- It was 200 easy ATP points to get. It represents more than an ATP250 final. If he aspires to compete with the top-3 next year, it could be important.
- He loses his rhythm and his confidence. Instead of winning 3 matches and being favorite of his semi, he will enter the court with 1 defeat, a bad match and less confidence.
- More important, he may (or likely WILL) end up 2nd of his group. He won 4 sets and lost 3. If Djokovic wins (even in 3) he is sure to be 1st of his group. If Federer wins in 2, he is 1st too. The only way Thiem can remain 1st of his group is if Federer wins in 3 sets (and still, it would depend on the game average...) It means Thiem will have to face the 1st of the other group in SF (Likely Tsitsipas). The winner of Federer/Djokovic will be against the 2nd of the other group (Likely Nadal or Zverev)

Funny, after his win against Djokovic, I said Thiem has chances to win the tournament... Now I think Federer Djokovic and Tsitsipas have better chances.
Berrettini anticipated his win. He said that Thiem's game suits him.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Thanks! You're correct. Ugh, these RR rules are so twisted. Each year I think I understood everything, only to realize I have not.

If I understand well, if Z beats M, N is eliminated for sure. If M beats Z and T beats N, Nadal - with his bad set-average- would be gone for sure. And if N beats T and M beats Z, then Nadal is #1... So in brief, Nadal can't finish 2nd?? Either he is gone or he is #1st and has pla against F or D. Nadal-Thiem in SF isn't a possibility, so??
Here are all the possibilities:



Nadal needs to beat Tsitsipas and Zverev needs to lose to Medvedev, in which case he'll finish 1st. Any other scenario will result in him being eliminated
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Did Thiem tank or did Berretini fairly defeated him? What kind of paranoia is this?

No player is unbeatable. Also, Berettini already defeated Thiem in Shanghai 2019
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Agreed. Thiem (because Badass isn't an official last name) would've been much more dangerous if he had beaten Berrettini. Now there are question marks around his form, especially if he takes on Tsitsipas or Nadal.
 

Sir Weed

Professional
Jeeeeesus, Thiem caught a cold and even went on air saying that he won't leave everything on court. It was obvious Thiem didn't even try - I thought that even the garden variety ttw non tennis player could have realized that watching this match. I was wrong. :(
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
Berrettini has always troubled Thiem. It came as no surprise to me that he lost to the Italian today. Dom isn't as good as the big 3 at exposing Berrettini's weaker backhand.
 

guitarra

Professional
1. It was probably a semi-tank, let's call it 'a lower motivation effort'.
2. Berrettini with his SV-FH botting combo is a tough matchup for Domi outside clay so even a slight drop of concentration results in a loss.
3. Of course it was SMART not to give 150% cause he has a bigger fish to fry on Saturday.
 

van_Loederen

Professional
I have seen this scenario many times, with the WTA finals especially. Tenniswomen who win the first 2 matches and are already qualified for the SF. They either tank the 3rd match or absolutely want to win it, but lose long matches in 3 sets and are exhausted for the SF. Both scenarios happen. When they play the SF, they're either exhausted or lost confidence...
and which of these 2 scenarios do you think occured here again?
or are you now saying that losing the dead rubber will hurt no matter what? then why that introduction in the OP?

Tennisfan339 said:
Look at Anderson last year FI. He won his first 2 matches in straight sets against Nishikori and Thiem. I'm not saying he lost against Federer on purpose but he kind of lost his rhythm in the SF against Djokovic. Ok, maybe it isn't the best example but either way, losing the 3rd RR match is rarely a good thing.
he won against Nishi and Thiem, then lost to 2 of the big 3. hard to think of a worse example indeed. :p

had he defeated Berrettino i would be more concerned tbh. the pressure on him would rise and he might get overconfident.
as it's now, he was put back in his place quite a bit, which should fit him more.
 
and why?
the most common scenario is that one player is already through after 2 matches and could throw the 3rd, IE lose 06 06.
Because the criteria should break down the results into smaller criteria (that really do separate the players) rather than emphasizing one aspect of the results over others. When players have the same win/loss record but a different set record, that means that, at the micro-level, the one with the better set record has just done better with no compensating betterness by the other in some other aspect of the scoring. But where a player has a better head to head but equal overall record, they by definition have a worse record in the non-head to head part of the results. That's why they are equal overall. Emphasizing part of the results at the expense of other parts of the results is not a good tiebreak. It's like the away goals rule in soccer/football, which is also a bad rule for the same reason.
 

van_Loederen

Professional
Because the criteria should break down the results into smaller criteria (that really do separate the players) rather than emphasizing one aspect of the results over others. When players have the same win/loss record but a different set record, that means that, at the micro-level, the one with the better set record has just done better with no compensating betterness by the other in some other aspect of the scoring. But where a player has a better head to head but equal overall record, they by definition have a worse record in the non-head to head part of the results. That's why they are equal overall. Emphasizing part of the results at the expense of other parts of the results is not a good tiebreak. It's like the away goals rule in soccer/football, which is also a bad rule for the same reason.
so you ignored the second part of the only sentence i posted and went on dishing your dogmatic theoretical views of what "should be". okaaay
 
Top