Proposal to Reform(at) the ATP Finals

[RaulRamirez]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

 

[PMF]

I like it.

There are many ways it could be done, but I would prefer watching a single elimination format.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship.

What does this even mean? How are they “flawed”?

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

Tennis is not a team sport — the seasons, but whatever definition we have for a “season,“ it’s not the same as it is in team sports, and these “tour championships” don’t determine a “champion” the same way as team sports do.

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

No. I like the round robin format, because it gives us the most possible matchups even though not every player is going to play every other player, but they will within their groups as you mentioned. Yes, someone can advance with a 1-2 record, but that’s rare. The round robin format gives this event, a special feeling, as opposed to a knock out version. They did try to knock out version for a while, and it wasn’t the same as the round robin.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

Again, every other tournament is a knockout tournament – this is different and allows for the most possible matchups. The double elimination idea is interesting.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

We used to have a best of five for the finals, and I don’t think that’s ever going to come back, though, I would like to see it. Defeating another really good player over best-of-five really shows some thing.

No, 1500 points for a perfect 5-0 record is the perfect amount. It is extraordinarily difficult to win five straight matches against good players in perfect tennis conditions; doing so should be worth more than just a regular masters win in which you likely have at least two or three wins over much worse competition

 

[RaulRamirez]

what does this even mean? How are they “flawed”?


Tennis is not a team sport — the seasons, but whatever definition, we have a “season,“ it’s not the same as it is in team sports, and these “tour championships” don’t determine a “champion” the same way as team sports do.


No. I like the round robin format, because it gives us the most possible matchups even though not every player is going to play every other player, but they will within their groups as you mentioned. Yes, someone can advance with a 1-2 record, but that’s rare. The round robin format gives this event, a special feeling, as opposed to a knock out version. They did try to knock out version for a while, and it wasn’t the same as the round robin.

?
I mentioned quite a few flaws.

Exactly. It's not a championship, so I'd rather points be no more than an M1000...I think it's too big of a points bonanza for what it is.

 

[ghostofMecir]

?
I mentioned quite a few flaws.

Exactly. It's not a championship, so I'd rather points be no more than an M1000...I think it's too big of a points bonanza for what it is.

I added onto my response as you can see above. I still don’t see what the “flaws” are as it’s a different type of event.When we say ”flaw,” we imply that there is a deviation from an ideal or perfect standard. If there is no perfect version to compare something with, it becomes subjective to label it as a flaw. there is no inherent “flaw” in a system that’s different from what were used to unless you think that the system that were used to is the absolute perfect ideal.

Winning five matches against five top eight players is a much bigger deal than winning a master series when you can play a few scrubs here and there.

 

[Martin J]

BO5 finals - I'm totally for it and strongly believe that the ATP made a huge mistake by changing the format for the YEC/Masters and other smaller tournaments, and robbed us of many epic matches (Miami 2005, Rome 2005/2006 are the most recent examples). I rewatched the 2004 Stuttgart final between Canas and Gaudio recently and it's sad we can't witness such a long and epic battles anymore.

Would definitely keep the reward at 1500 points for the perfect run, this tournament has more weight than a regular Masters and is more challenging winning it, plus has a stronger opposition, can't see the reason for degrading it.

 

[tennis3]

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship.

I agree with this. Some years they've really just been an exhibition. Some years they've been quite serious. Fortunately this year, I feel like it is very much more on the serious side, especially with these Top 4 players playing this weekend. Given the constraints and the time it has to be in the season, I don't know that they can really make the changes necessary so it's never just an exho.

I know I'm going to sit back this weekend and enjoy the last 3 matches. They should all be great.

 

[NAS]

Well as one user said just one day back, with normal elimination format, it will be master Series with less draw.
Only thing they need to do is about injured player problem

 

[Jardinier]

what does this even mean? How are they “flawed”?


Tennis is not a team sport — the seasons, but whatever definition, we have a “season,“ it’s not the same as it is in team sports, and these “tour championships” don’t determine a “champion” the same way as team sports do.


No. I like the round robin format, because it gives us the most possible matchups even though not every player is going to play every other player, but they will within their groups as you mentioned. Yes, someone can advance with a 1-2 record, but that’s rare. The round robin format gives this event, a special feeling, as opposed to a knock out version. They did try to knock out version for a while, and it wasn’t the same as the round robin.


Again, every other tournament is a knockout tournament – this is different in Alaska the most possible matchups. The double elimination ideas interesting.


We used to have a best of five for the finals, and I don’t think that’s ever going to come back, though, I would like to see it. Defeating another really good player over best-of-five really shows some thing.

No, 1500 points for a perfect 5-0 record is the perfect amount. It is extraordinarily difficult to win five straight matches against good players in perfect tennis conditions doing so should be worth more than just a regular masters win in which you likely have at least two or three wins over much worse competition

I agree with all of the comments. ATP Finals is a very special tournament. In the eighties it was almost considered as a ‘fifth’ slam, and a round robin format brings a lot of interesting possibilities and also for the strong players not to be eliminated after one weaker performance or because of unequal relative strengths of the groups.

The tournament should start on Friday, with the last group matches on Wednesday, round robin matches best of 3 sets, the semi-finals played on Friday, best of 5 sets and the finals on Sundays, best of 5sets.

The semi-finals winners should get additional 100 points and the winner of the tournament additional 100 points, thus altogether possible 1700 points. The changes would additionally increase the significance and reputation of the tournament for players as well as public.

On Thursday and Saturday, on free days, it should be played a mini tournament (Future stars) with 4 best players not qualified for the main event, semi-finals winners getting 100 points and the finals winner additional 150 points.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I agree with all of the comments. ATP Finals is a very special tournament. In the eighties it was almost considered as a ‘fifth’ slam, and a round robin format brings a lot of interesting possibilities and also for the strong players not to be eliminated after one weaker performance or because of unequal relative strengths of the groups.

The tournament should start on Friday, with the last group matches on Wednesday, round robin matches best of 3 sets, the semi-finals played on Friday, best of 5 sets and the finals on Sundays, best of 5sets.

The semi-finals winners should get additional 100 points and the winner of the tournament additional 100 points, thus altogether possible 1700 points. The changes would additionally increase the significance and reputation of the tournament for players as well as public.

On Thursday and Saturday, on free days, it should be played a mini tournament (Future stars) with 4 best players not qualified for the main event, semi-finals winners getting 100 points and the finals winner additional 150 points.

Good stuff.

 

[InsideOut900]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

I think the point of having the top 8 at a tournament is to decide who is the best by allowing as many permutations match-ups as possible.

By making it a knockout tournament, any fun is killed, for me at least, because it's the same format we already see for 11 months of the year.

It has some flaws, mostly how worse performing players can be rewarded over better performing players and dead rubbers, but then again, the same thing happens all the time in knockout draws, some just benefit from easier paths than others. But at least you get the general idea of who is better and who is not by playing half of the top players, not just be in a do or die situation from the first match.

And about the last point, the BO5 final with a day off after semi would be great for the show.

Playing both semi and final in BO5, especially since one group finishes a day later, would put some of the players at clear disadvantage though

 

[NAS]

For BO5 final they can start groups on Saturday and have BO5 final on Sunday with Saturday being one day rest

 

[TripleATeam]

My main gripes with the tournament come from 3 places.

1. Retirements. They really mess up the 3-way tiebreaks and cause a lot of issues because the ATP Finals assumes an alternate = a non-alternate. This isn't the case, an alternate could be much weaker or much stronger. It also drastically changes suspense.
   1. Retirement tiebreak mess ups:
      1. Take the 2009 ATP Finals. Verdasco played and lost to all of Federer/Murray/Delpo in 3 sets. They all tied in Set W/L, it went to games. Murray lost out to Delpo by a single won game. If Verdasco had instead just retired from the Murray match in the 3rd set, it would've counted as a straight set victory for Murray and eventual finalist Delpo would be out in the RR.
      2. In that same tournament, if they had taken out performance against the 0-3 Verdasco as a factor and only counted performance against the others who were 2-1, Federer would've been 26-28. Murray would've been 25-26, Delpo would've been 29-27. Delpo and Murray would've moved on.
      3. It seems strange that the entire future of the tournament can rest on the player that loses all his matches (and if he decides to retire in the final set of the tournament or not). The rules should be written to prevent that.
   2. Alternates being stronger:
      1. Easily 2023, Tsitsipas was barely a factor but Hurkacz was nearly unbreakable for 2 sets, and played decently on the baseline. Not something you could say about Stefanos there.
2. An alternate has almost no chance of progressing.
   1. An true alternate (a mid-RR alternate) will never have more than 2 wins, and sometimes even that isn't enough.
   2. A better system would be to "fill" the missed matches with lost bagel sets. Player A goes 2-0 (4-0, all 6-2) as an alternate but it gets "filled" to 2-1, Player B goes 2-1 (4-2, losing 2-6 and winning tiebreaks), and Player C goes 2-1 (4-1, all 6-4 sets). Player A's game W/L is 24-20 (54%), B's is 32-36 (47%). It would still be difficult, but it would at least make it a chance, and would make winning 4 bagels sets as an alternate still guarantee you a SF spot.
3. Few permutations on wins/losses.
   1. .
      1. 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3
      2. 3-0, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2
      3. 2-1, 2-1, 1-2, 1-2
      4. 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3
   2. The way we fix that is by adding in 2 wildcards. Either the #9 player and #10 player or make it a "best of #9-#16" and make a whole qualifying process to get there. Then we get significantly more variance and ties are a lot less common, and 3 way ties are even rarer.

 

[Beerus]

I agree about the Bo5 stuff. Other than that, leave the YEC alone.

 

[timnz]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

 

[NatF]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

Stopped reading here.

 

[timnz]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

There is nothing wrong with the round robin format. It works well. Many sports have round robin. From 1982 through 1985 they eliminated the round robin format, but afterwards they went back to it.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

RR is great and special: let's keep it like this
(used only for this event)
we need a bo5 final, though...

 

[WYK]

The format is very clear:

Rules And Format | Nitto ATP Finals | Tennis

Nitto ATP Finals Rules & Regulations for the tournament at the Pala Alpitour in Turin

www.nittoatpfinals.com

It is a typical round robin, and the draw is a typical round robin club draw. I play two of these per year at our club.
Have you people never played a round robin tournament? I mean, do you even ever play tournaments?
Judging by the reaction to the ATP finals and to the draw, it looks like few here ever play tournaments or have even looked at the format on paper.
This isn't foreign or odd, nor is it's implementation.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Stopped reading here.

Thanks for the snarky comment.
But seriously, if you stopped reading there, that implies, to me, that you disagreed with that sentence.
So, do you think this tourney is an exhibition or is it a season/annual championship?
I see it as neither, but possessing some elements of both.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

I prefer each player will play 7 matches (everybody plays everyone), and the 2 most successful players will play a best-of-5-set final!

 

[RaulRamirez]

RR is great and special: let's keep it like this
(used only for this event)
we need a bo5 final, though...

As for Bo5, you and I - and many here - may watch it, but I think that given the length of the season, and the amount of injuries (and WDs and retirements) already, it's too much for the players.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

Even Hingis and Graf played a 5-set Final at the season-ending championship.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I prefer each player will play 7 matches (everybody plays everyone), and the 2 most successful players will play a best-of-5-set final!

I thought about that (for the sake of fairness) but I think that's a lot to ask of players at the end of a very long season.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

As for Bo5, you and I - and many here - may watch it, but I think that given the length of the season, and the amount of injuries (and WDs and retirements) already, it's too much for the players.

it's 1 freaking match... the last one of the regular season!
they've already got bo3 everywhere else, more byes than in the past... if you wanna reduce injuries, just unslow up a bit the game over the year!

 

[RaulRamirez]

I agree with all of the comments. ATP Finals is a very special tournament. In the eighties it was almost considered as a ‘fifth’ slam, and a round robin format brings a lot of interesting possibilities and also for the strong players not to be eliminated after one weaker performance or because of unequal relative strengths of the groups.

The tournament should start on Friday, with the last group matches on Wednesday, round robin matches best of 3 sets, the semi-finals played on Friday, best of 5 sets and the finals on Sundays, best of 5sets.

The semi-finals winners should get additional 100 points and the winner of the tournament additional 100 points, thus altogether possible 1700 points. The changes would additionally increase the significance and reputation of the tournament for players as well as public.

On Thursday and Saturday, on free days, it should be played a mini tournament (Future stars) with 4 best players not qualified for the main event, semi-finals winners getting 100 points and the finals winner additional 150 points.

The Thursday/Saturday idea is interesting.
One quibble: The future stars may not be that depending upon how the season played out. (Unless you want to do a "next gen" type thing based on maximum age)

 

[RaulRamirez]

My main gripes with the tournament come from 3 places.

1. Retirements. They really mess up the 3-way tiebreaks and cause a lot of issues because the ATP Finals assumes an alternate = a non-alternate. This isn't the case, an alternate could be much weaker or much stronger. It also drastically changes suspense.
   1. Retirement tiebreak mess ups:
      1. Take the 2009 ATP Finals. Verdasco played and lost to all of Federer/Murray/Delpo in 3 sets. They all tied in Set W/L, it went to games. Murray lost out to Delpo by a single won game. If Verdasco had instead just retired from the Murray match in the 3rd set, it would've counted as a straight set victory for Murray and eventual finalist Delpo would be out in the RR.
      2. In that same tournament, if they had taken out performance against the 0-3 Verdasco as a factor and only counted performance against the others who were 2-1, Federer would've been 26-28. Murray would've been 25-26, Delpo would've been 29-27. Delpo and Murray would've moved on.
      3. It seems strange that the entire future of the tournament can rest on the player that loses all his matches (and if he decides to retire in the final set of the tournament or not). The rules should be written to prevent that.
   2. Alternates being stronger:
      1. Easily 2023, Tsitsipas was barely a factor but Hurkacz was nearly unbreakable for 2 sets, and played decently on the baseline. Not something you could say about Stefanos there.
2. An alternate has almost no chance of progressing.
   1. An true alternate (a mid-RR alternate) will never have more than 2 wins, and sometimes even that isn't enough.
   2. A better system would be to "fill" the missed matches with lost bagel sets. Player A goes 2-0 (4-0, all 6-2) as an alternate but it gets "filled" to 2-1, Player B goes 2-1 (4-2, losing 2-6 and winning tiebreaks), and Player C goes 2-1 (4-1, all 6-4 sets). Player A's game W/L is 24-20 (54%), B's is 32-36 (47%). It would still be difficult, but it would at least make it a chance, and would make winning 4 bagels sets as an alternate still guarantee you a SF spot.
3. Few permutations on wins/losses.
   1. .
      1. 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3
      2. 3-0, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2
      3. 2-1, 2-1, 1-2, 1-2
      4. 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3
   2. The way we fix that is by adding in 2 wildcards. Either the #9 player and #10 player or make it a "best of #9-#16" and make a whole qualifying process to get there. Then we get significantly more variance and ties are a lot less common, and 3 way ties are even rarer.

Per the alternate (sub, a la Hurcacz, but possibly a round earlier) perhaps, they should make it a little easier for them to advance. Perhaps, there's no perfect way, but shouldn't 2-0 be better than 2-1, or 1-1 better than 1-2? But once you bring in an alternate, it already changes what the main idea of the RR system is. I also understand why they do it. To me, once you bring in an alternate mid-tourney, there may be no way to "normalize" things.

I don't understand how the wildcards would work.

 

[NatF]

Thanks for the snarky comment.
But seriously, if you stopped reading there, that implies, to me, that you disagreed with that sentence.
So, do you think this tourney is an exhibition or is it a season/annual championship?
I see it as neither, but possessing some elements of both.

I generally think those that consider this tournament an exhibition are idiots. The history, the points etc...are all incompatible with it being an exhibition. The players themselves consider it a big deal as well. So if your starting point is that it's not "a true championship" or that it's verging on being an exhibition I see no point entertaining any of your suggestions on this subject.

 

[NatF]

it's 1 freaking match... the last one of the regular season!
they've already got bo3 everywhere else, more byes than in the past... if you wanna reduce injuries, just unslow up a bit the game over the year!

We constantly hear how today's players are better athletes etc...yet they can't handle a BO5 final, something there was a lot more of in decades past

 

[Sport]

It is extraordinarily difficult to win five straight matches against good players in perfect tennis conditions

How are indoor hard "perfect" tennis conditions? Why is that inherently superior to indoor grass or indoor clay?

And, more broadly, why is the indoor condition supposedly superior to the outdoor condition?

The All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club (aka Wimbledon) was inaugurated ni 1877, played in outdoor conditions, much earlier than the invention of any indoor hard court tournament.

Naturally, real tennis (the historial predecessor of modern tennis) was played on indoor, but not on indoor hard courts specifically, they were more like indoor wood courts.

Anyway, history is constantly evolving and things change. Nowadays, tennis played in both indoor and outdoor conditions and there's no reason to assume that indoor hard courts give "perfect" conditions for tennis. Indoor hard courts allow for a faster gamestyle, with faster courts and overall lower baseline interchanges than, for instance, outdoor clay or outdoor grass. Outdoor conditions allow for other factors, such as wind, to emerge, but not all matches played outdoor have wind. Also, outdoor codnitions generally allow for a slower pace and rhytm of play (especially on clay), with less emphasis on the serve and fast gamestyle and allowing longer rallies. No objective reason to consider some conditions "perfect" and others "non-perfect" apart from the player you support. Obviously, indoor hard court (and even more indoor grass) is a "perfect" condition for your favorite player, who happens to be Roger Federer. That would make indoor hard subjectively perfect, but not objectively perfect, as the only reason why you consider the aforementioned conditions perfect is that they allow your favorite player to win more matches.

 

[GoatNo1]

groups are great. something completely different for the very end of the season. points are good. and the tension around the rating is often maintained until the very end of the season. YE#1 is often decided during WTF. the only thing is that they totally messed up with the system of passing groups in case the reserves jump in. because those reserves are rested and possibly much better (or worse) than the player they are replacing. what happened now: one player played with tsitsi, other practically got a WO, which counts as a full pott, while the third played with a completely different player who was healthier and rested and better at fast indoor than tsitsi. and then how is it normal that all that mess is counted equal to all three? in case the players are not playing against the same opponent, the TB (if all have the same amount of wins) should only be the ratio between the three remaining players. Let the wins be counted, but sets and games must not be counted equally with the one who played against the first player, the one who won do to the virtually WO (RET) and the one who played against the second player.

 

[GoatNo1]

How are indoor hard "perfect" tennis conditions? Why is that inherently superior to indoor grass or indoor clay?

And, more broadly, why is the indoor condition supposedly superior to the outdoor condition?

with indoor there is no risk of extreme factors such as wind, heat or humidity affecting the game. there is no sun or shadows on the court and no risk of rain interrupting the game. furthermore, both grass and clay have irregular and strange bounces while on HC bounces are much more regular.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I generally think those that consider this tournament an exhibition are idiots. The history, the points etc...are all incompatible with it being an exhibition. The players themselves consider it a big deal as well. So if your starting point is that it's not "a true championship" or that it's verging on being an exhibition I see no point entertaining any of your suggestions on this subject.

But I expressly did not dismiss it as an exhibition, to better define my argument. Abd it's not a true year's championship, either, nor should it be. It's not the equivalent (hey, I'm American) of the World Series or the Super Bowl, or NBA championships, Stanley Cup or close to comparable. The ATP has four huge events, and yes, a running point system that is also important.
Now, if #1 changes hands at this event, sure, that's legit.
But it is also the case where players arrive with varying degrees of motivation, which generally isn't the case at the slams.

 

[RaulRamirez]

groups are great. something completely different for the very end of the season. points are good. and the tension around the rating is often maintained until the very end of the season. YE#1 is often decided during WTF. the only thing is that they totally messed up with the system of passing groups in case the reserves jump in. because those reserves are rested and possibly much better (or worse) than the player they are replacing. what happened now: one player played with tsitsi, other practically got a WO, which counts as a full pott, while the third played with a completely different player who was healthier and rested and better at fast indoor than tsitsi. and then how is it normal that all that mess is counted equal to all three? in case the players are not playing against the same opponent, the TB (if all have the same amount of wins) should only be the ratio between the three remaining players. Let the wins be counted, but sets and games must not be counted equally with the one who played against the first player, the one who won do to the virtually WO (RET) and the one who played against the second player.

I don't want to get bogged down on the specifics of this year, but to me, this did expose an additional flaw.
This, and other things I brought up have me leaning to either a knockout or a double elimination tourney.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

No

 

[SonnyT]

This isn't a traditional tournament, so RR should stay. An example of how absurd this is: no 2 seed Alcaraz is out after first match.

Can you think of b2b best of 5 matches without day of rest?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I say bring back the no tramlines version of the court.
It made the tournament look and feel different. And I found it very satisfying to watch.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

As for Bo5, you and I - and many here - may watch it, but I think that given the length of the season, and the amount of injuries (and WDs and retirements) already, it's too much for the players.

We will never see the sport changing shorter formats back to longer formats, that boat has already sailed. Unfortunately, the only likely changes will always be to reduce the format, and Slams will eventually be at risk.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

We constantly here how today's players are better athletes etc...yet they can't handle a BO5 final, something there was a lot more of in decades past

The difference is they didn't usually play 3 hours long best of 3 matches.
3h was often a best of 5 match back in the 80's and 90's.

 

[RaulRamirez]

We will never see the sport changing shorter formats back to longer formats, that boat has already sailed. Unfortunately, the only likely changes will always be to reduce the format, and Slams will eventually be at risk.

I agree.
And/but I also understand it from the point of view of players, whether or not that's driving the decision.
The tennis season affords almost no offseason, and there are already so many injuries.
Asking them to play more (and yes, I get that top players are well compensated) doesn't seem the way to go.
For instance, I thought of what I would call a true RR with every player meeting the other 7, but that would lead to some players competing in more matches than in the slams.
Then from thee, I thought about "Why 8 players? Is that a magic number? Why not 6 or 5?
What if, from the tourney's roots, it was just for the Top-5 players and they all played one another, prior to semis and finals?
...
Honestly, while I enjoy Bo5 in slams, and I realize the history of Bo5 here and in 1000s, losing Bo5 wouldn't be the end of the tennis world for me.

 

[ND-13]

Everything fine as-is. this is one, unique format, which is not a knock out, but still gives 3 attempts for someone to be able to redeem themselves.

We dont need to have yet another reduced masters draw.

Given the style of play today, 5 sets for finals can mean the finalists don't make it to AO. They are all grinders and not attackers. The surface also is encouraging such play mostly.

 

[tudwell]

I feel like a withdrawal in such a small knockout tournament would be even worse than it is in the round robin format. Suddenly one guy gets to play just three or even just two matches (depending on how many players play to begin with) to win the championship. Gets to skip a day against one of the world’s best players and come through rested up.

I think the current system could probably handle withdrawals and retirements in some better way, but honestly the round robin is much more fair in those kinds of situations because advancement doesn’t depend on one single match.

 

[helterskelter]

Okay, this isn’t the first and won’t likely be the last thread on this topic. And as I write, the top 4 seeds did make it through to the semis, although that’s incidental to this thread.

I have long felt that the ATP Finals (by whatever name) are highly flawed. They’re a strange animal – not an exhibition, but not a true championship. That said, they can determine year-end #1, if the race is close enough coming in. The tourney extends the season to almost 11 months, giving ATP players the shortest offseason by far of any sport I follow. One month as compared to about 5 months for the NFL, NBA and NHL, and 3-4 months for MLB. As such, players come into it with various stages of fitness and motivation. These proposals won’t really address that, unless the tourney is scrapped altogether.

I don’t believe in change for change’s sake, but I also don’t want to keep something just because it’s always been done that way. So without spilling 10,000 words on this, I propose:

Kill the round robin format. It’s not a true round robin anyway, as not everyone plays everyone else. Okay, within the groups they do, or are supposed to…unless there’s a withdrawal and an alternate takes their place (which defeats the whole RR concept). But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary, other than 1 and 2 being in separate groups. This format makes for a situation where a player in Group A can go 1-2 and advance, while a player can go 2-1 in Group B and be eliminated. It also leaves the tourney open to alternate players subbing in once the tourney is underway, the possibility of tanking matches (kudos to Sinner for playing his heart out to win v. Rune, by the way) and dead rubbers.

While some enjoy that this tourney is different, I find the format (and barely touching upon the tiebreaker rules, which are a bit odd) to be highly flawed for the above reasons. I would prefer a knockout draw – whether 8 players, 16, or possibly 12 (with byes to the top 4)…and maybe, even as many as 24 with 8 byes.

Another way to do it (keeping it to 8 players) would be to play it as a double-elimination tourney. But no groups, no potential substitutes, no set or game percentage tiebreakers. This would result in [14 or]15 matches (as we have now), and no dead rubbers or possible tanking.

How about a Best of 5 for the semis or finals? I wouldn’t mind seeing it, but realistically, the season is too long for the players as is, and there are way too many injuries already. So I’d say no.

Reduce Amount of Points Awarded: I think that 1300 or 1500 points is too much. I would rather 1000 for the winner.

Thoughts?

My thoughts on each idea:

1a) Keep the round robin format. (By the way, it is seeded: each group has one of 1/2, one of 3/4, one of 5/6, and one of 7/8).
1b) If going to knockout, make it 16. Eight would be too short. 12 is morally wrong, as it involves byes. NO BYES IN ANY TOUR EVENT.
2) Yes, best of five for final. Ideally, best of five for semis, too, but it means elongating the tournament so that there's a day in between semis and final. Perhaps make it a mixed event, with alternating men's and women's days. Women's final best of five, too, as it used to be, in that eventuality. Ideally, women's semis best of five, too.
3) Keep amount of points awarded OR scrap points altogether. Don't reduce - it's a more important event than an MS tournament. But it's not fair to give the top players a cushion over everyone else, so perhaps it should not have any points allocated. In that eventuality, significant increase in prize money needed as compensation.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I feel like a withdrawal in such a small knockout tournament would be even worse than it is in the round robin format. Suddenly one guy gets to play just three or even just two matches (depending on how many players play to begin with) to win the championship. Gets to skip a day against one of the world’s best players and come through rested up.

I think the current system could probably handle withdrawals and retirements in some better way, but honestly the round robin is much more fair in those kinds of situations because advancement doesn’t depend on one single match.

Points well taken, but as is, advancement could depend on a single game played in the middle of a winning (o losing) set or match.

 

[tudwell]

Points well taken, but as is, advancement could depend on a single game played in the middle of a winning (o losing) set or match.

I guess. I look at it like this: In a normal knockout tournament, advancement depends on a single match played against a different opponent than anyone else. In the round robin format, advancement depends on performance across three matches against mutual opponents – in that sense, I think it’s more “fair” because everyone (in the same group) is playing the same players and it’s an aggregate of their performance across three matches. A lesser player getting hot for a couple sets is less significant. Things regress to the mean across a larger sample size (though obviously three isn’t especially large, but compared to one…) and the better players come through.

Things like Tsitsipas’s retirement three games in muck everything up, but under normal conditions I quite like the round robin format.

 

[RaulRamirez]

My thoughts on each idea:

1a) Keep the round robin format. (By the way, it is seeded: each group has one of 1/2, one of 3/4, one of 5/6, and one of 7/8).
1b) If going to knockout, make it 16. Eight would be too short. 12 is morally wrong, as it involves byes. NO BYES IN ANY TOUR EVENT.
2) Yes, best of five for final. Ideally, best of five for semis, too, but it means elongating the tournament so that there's a day in between semis and final. Perhaps make it a mixed event, with alternating men's and women's days. Women's final best of five, too, as it used to be, in that eventuality. Ideally, women's semis best of five, too.
3) Keep amount of points awarded OR scrap points altogether. Don't reduce - it's a more important event than an MS tournament. But it's not fair to give the top players a cushion over everyone else, so perhaps it should not have any points allocated. In that eventuality, significant increase in prize money needed as compensation.

Some replies, and short-handing some, as a) watching tennis; and b) we've discussed some of these before.

1-a. I get that it's seeded as you wrote. But the group idea isn't sacrosanct to me, and these groupings have no real meaning outside this tourney.
1-b. I know your position on byes and possibly, even seeding. I'm almost the opposite here, in that I like strict numerical seeding. Agreed, an 8-man knockout also seems too short to me, but yeah, I can see byes as a reward for good play during the previous 12 months, as that is what this tournament (in essence) is. I'm cool with 12, 16 or 24.
2. A longer tourney with both tours could work --although I'm not thinking about overall scheduling logistics. Or as was suggested on this thread, use off-days (say Thursday and Saturday) for a mini-tourney among the next 4 or, perhaps, a next gen-type mini...
3. If you scrap points, then it becomes an exho.

The more I'm thinking about this - and the various replies, a double elimination tourney may have a lot of the benefits with as few as possible of the drawbacks.
A. It would be unique (in tennis) to this event.
B. It would prevent someone from being eliminated after just one match. I may have (at my low level) done this before in tennis, and I have definitely done this in men's softball tournaments.
C. A win would be a win, and a loss a loss. No tiebreaking criteria on game and set percentages.
D. Also, no groups and no alternate players once tourney play starts.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

Even Hingis and Graf played a 5-set Final at the season-ending championship.

And Hingis was an astonishingly young 16 years old at the time!
BTW you are the best and most insightful poster on Talk Tennis.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I guess. I look at it like this: In a normal knockout tournament, advancement depends on a single match played against a different opponent than anyone else. In the round robin format, advancement depends on performance across three matches against mutual opponents – in that sense, I think it’s more “fair” because everyone (in the same group) is playing the same players and it’s an aggregate of their performance across three matches. A lesser player getting hot for a couple sets is less significant. Things regress to the mean across a larger sample size (though obviously three isn’t especially large, but compared to one…) and the better players come through.

Things like Tsitsipas’s retirement three games in muck everything up, but under normal conditions I quite like the round robin format.

Cool....see my reply to helterskelter just now. The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of a double elimination tourney.

 

[RaulRamirez]

And Hingis was an astonishingly young 16 years old at the time!
BTW you are the best and most insightful poster on Talk Tennis.

Thanks(?)...although you replied to yourself, so I'm not sure who your compliment was addressed to...

 

[tudwell]

Cool....see my reply to helterskelter just now. The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of a double elimination tourney.

Yeah I think that’s an interesting mid-point between single elimination and round robin. Not overly familiar with double elimination in practice, but seems like a strong alternative, if there has to be some change to the finals format.