Proposal to Reform(at) the ATP Finals

[RaulRamirez]

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.

I found this on a site called LeagueLobster. Substitute "player" for "team".
Note they don't have to be randomly paired at the outset.
An additional option is that you can elect that the winner of the losers bracket would have to defeat the winner of the winner's bracket twice....otherwise, he'd have only lost once.

How does an 8 team double elimination bracket work?​

In an 8 team double elimination bracket, each team plays at least two games, with the winners advancing and the losers dropping to a "losers" bracket.

In the first round, the eight teams are randomly paired and play a single game. The winners advance to the next round and the losers drop to the losers bracket.

In the second round, the winners of the first round play each other, while the losers play in the losers bracket. The winners advance and the losers drop to the losers bracket.

This process continues until the winners bracket produces a champion and the losers bracket produces a runner-up. These two teams then play a single game to determine the overall champion.

A team is eliminated from the tournament after they have lost two games. In a double elimination tournament, a team must lose twice before being eliminated.

 

[Jonesy]

I believe the surface of ATP finals should be unique to represent how special the tournament is.

It must be something grandiose, like glass on the top of a tower.

The name should also change to SKY tournament, the paradise that only the cream de la creme of pro tennis can achieve access to.

 

[helterskelter]

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.

Just going to agree to disagree on points 1 through 3. All I will add is that fans of the current format think that it offers something unique in tennis to this event.

Double elimination meaning that those who lose go into a consolation bracket, as in amateur events? Not sure what you mean by it if not that. I guess it's fine, as it keeps players active. They used to have a plate tournament at Wimbledon for those who lost in rounds 1 and 2. I think it was only in the women's event, at least in my memory. But if you mean a knockout in which a player isn't eliminated from the main draw after losing once, that to my mind would be much worse than the round robin system currently in play.

 

[helterskelter]

I found this on a site called LeagueLobster. Substitute "player" for "team".
Note they don't have to be randomly paired at the outset.
An additional option is that you can elect that the winner of the losers bracket would have to defeat the winner of the winner's bracket twice....otherwise, he'd have only lost once.

How does an 8 team double elimination bracket work?​

In an 8 team double elimination bracket, each team plays at least two games, with the winners advancing and the losers dropping to a "losers" bracket.

In the first round, the eight teams are randomly paired and play a single game. The winners advance to the next round and the losers drop to the losers bracket.

In the second round, the winners of the first round play each other, while the losers play in the losers bracket. The winners advance and the losers drop to the losers bracket.

This process continues until the winners bracket produces a champion and the losers bracket produces a runner-up. These two teams then play a single game to determine the overall champion.

A team is eliminated from the tournament after they have lost two games. In a double elimination tournament, a team must lose twice before being eliminated.

So the winner of the winners bracket players the winner of the losers bracket and if the latter wins, they win the event?

Count that as MUCH, MUCH worse than the round robin format for me. The losers bracket is the easier one. Allowing someone to play most of the event through that and still win the whole shebang is a terrible idea. (Not made up for by beating the winner of the winner's bracket twice - maybe beating them four times, but probably not). Definitely worse than the current system for me by a long way. And worse than going to a simple knockout too (maybe not as bad as a knockout with byes, because byes are terrible, but worse than a 16-player single-elimination knockout, or even than an 8-player one).

I'd be okay with going down to four players and having one round robin between all four, so long as there wasn't a final for the top two.

 

[helterskelter]

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.

There doesn't have to be a change to the finals format and the proposal would be a marked change for the worse, for reasons I explained in my reply to Raul. Just to add to it, the format Raul proposed incentivizes tanking the opening match so as to be in the easier bracket for most of the event, only to come out of it and play hard in the final against an opponent who is tired from slogging through the more difficult draw.

 

[RaulRamirez]

So the winner of the winners bracket players the winner of the losers bracket and if the latter wins, they win the event?

Count that as MUCH, MUCH worse than the round robin format for me.

I disagree, obviously. I think it would combine the best of both "worlds".
But we can stay in a world where alternate players, possible tanking and game and set percentages are still factors.

Per double elimination, I don't know if it's been done in pro tennis, but I've played in softball tourneys like this and I think that the college baseball world series uses this format. In baseball/softball world, the winner of the losers bracket (kind of an unfair term, based on one loss) would have to win twice in the finals, the other (undefeated) player only once. You can see a bracket with this spelled out, and I'm sue that many here have done this, whether for club tennis or other sports.

 

[Moose Malloy]

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.

Yeah it's cute that many here seem to think that best of 5 could ever be attempted again on tour(I think Davis Cup was final nail in the coffin for best of 5)

Djokovic played two 3 hour best of 3 set matches this week, Sinner-Medvedev Vienna was 3 hours, etc. The idea of a 3 hour long indoor match in the 80s/90s/2000s would have been somewhat comical. I think there may be some experiments with that no ad format the Next Gen event uses at some point at this event.

 

[helterskelter]

I disagree, obviously. I think it would combine the best of both "worlds".
But we can stay in a world where alternate players, possible tanking and game and set percentages are still factors.

Per double elimination, I don't know if it's been done in pro tennis, but I've played in softball tourneys like this and I think that the college baseball world series uses this format. In baseball/softball world, the winner of the losers bracket (kind of an unfair term, based on one loss) would have to win twice in the finals, the other (undefeated) player only once. You can see a bracket with this spelled out, and I'm sue that many here have done this, whether for club tennis or other sports.

I really think the double elimination format is a terrible idea. Not convincible on it at all. I've seen it happen too now you mention it, and always hated it and thought it was extremely unfair. Once you're out of a knockout event, you're out. That's the point of a knockout. Round robins or leagues are different formats, so losing in one and still winning the event is acceptable. But winning a losers bracket and going on to win the event is just awful. It incentivizes tanking the first match, as I pointed out to Tudwell.

You don't like the current format, okay. But many of the things you think of as bugs, are to others just features. Set and game percentage is one of those things, for me. I honestly think it's a great part of the event!

Alternates are unfortunate - I would prefer it if an injured player just had all their subsequent matches count as losses. (I'd also prefer it if there were no lucky losers in knockout events and any withdrawals in round 1 resulted in a walkover for the victor as in subsequent rounds, for similar reasons). The tour won't do that because it would mean fewer matches and they wouldn't be able to sell as many tickets. But it is the fair solution, in my view.

Tanking is a major problem in double elimination systems, for reasons I explained. The incidence of tanking can be reduced in round robins by starting the final matches in each group at the same time, as they do in the World Cup and in the European Champions League.

 

[tudwell]

You don't like the current format, okay. But many of the things you think of as bugs, are to others just features. Set and game percentage is one of those things, for me. I honestly think it's a great part of the event!

Yeah, I really like all that stuff. In a regular knockout event (which is 99% of all events on tour), winning efficiently doesn’t really matter except in so far as winning inefficiently hinders your subsequent performances. In the round robin, winning dominantly is even further incentivized. If you win more convincingly and, if you have to lose, lose more competitively, then you’re through. No tanking or score manipulation can change that. The better player comes through. It’s not like a knockout event where one weak quarter of the draw can see someone way out of their depth come through to the business end of the tournament. Whoever’s in the best form across three consecutive matches against other top players moves on.

I think in theory, the crème should rise to the top more consistently in a round robin format than in a single-elimination format (though whether that happens in practice is another matter).

 

[RaulRamirez]

I really think the double elimination format is a terrible idea. Not convincible on it at all. I've seen it happen too now you mention it, and always hated it and thought it was extremely unfair. Once you're out of a knockout event, you're out. That's the point of a knockout. Round robins or leagues are different formats, so losing in one and still winning the event is acceptable. But winning a losers bracket and going on to win the event is just awful. It incentivizes tanking the first match, as I pointed out to Tudwell.

You don't like the current format, okay. But many of the things you think of as bugs, are to others just features. Set and game percentage is one of those things, for me. I honestly think it's a great part of the event!

Alternates are unfortunate - I would prefer it if an injured player just had all their subsequent matches count as losses. (I'd also prefer it if there were no lucky losers in knockout events and any withdrawals in round 1 resulted in a walkover for the victor as in subsequent rounds, for similar reasons). The tour won't do that because it would mean fewer matches and they wouldn't be able to sell as many tickets. But it is the fair solution, in my view.

Tanking is a major problem in double elimination systems, for reasons I explained. The incidence of tanking can be reduced in round robins by starting the final matches in each group at the same time, as they do in the World Cup and in the European Champions League.

If it's a double elimination tourney, then it's not a classic knockout.
If you don't see it or like it, fine.

 

[helterskelter]

Yeah, I really like all that stuff. In a regular knockout event (which is 99% of all events on tour), winning efficiently doesn’t really matter except in so far as winning inefficiently hinders your subsequent performances. In the round robin, winning dominantly is even further incentivized. If you win more convincingly and, if you have to lose, lose more competitively, then you’re through. No tanking or score manipulation can change that. The better player comes through. It’s not like a knockout event where one weak quarter of the draw can see someone way out of their depth come through to the business end of the tournament. Whoever’s in the best form across three consecutive matches against other top players moves on. I think in theory, the crème should rise to the top more consistently in a round robin format than in a single-elimination format.

I think it just seems like a weird format to some people in North America (and perhaps elsewhere in the world, depending on which sports are popular in those parts), because they're not so used to league formats. To people in Europe and South America who follow the football leagues, the format is perfectly intuitive, and it is indeed overall more likely to result in the best player/team winning. (That is one reason I wouldn't want this to happen more than once a year - I think tennis benefits from variation in the winners, overall. But I think that having the year-end event be designed in a way likely to produce more top-heavy results is fine, and I agree with what you say here completely).

 

[helterskelter]

If it's a double elimination tourney, then it's not a classic knockout.
If you don't see it or like it, fine.

I think it's fine to split into a winners bracket and a losers bracket. I think it's not fine at all to go back into one bracket at the end. It's really unfair to the winner of the winners bracket. The winner of the event should be the winner of the winners bracket. Full stop. Period. The winner of the losers bracket wins a consolation event, and that's fine. But them becoming the winner of the whole event is a sort of reversion to the challenge round. Tennis got rid of that just over a century ago. I know it's the sort of thing they do in American sports - where the ultimate victor has to depend on one big finale and every sport has playoffs. I think it's a problem endemic to the American sport systems and one of the reasons I've never got that into baseball, even though I actually really enjoy going to a baseball game. (I find "football" about as entertaining as watching mostly dry paint complete its drying process, so the playoff system is irrelevant to my disdain for that one).

 

[RaulRamirez]

I think it's fine to split into a winners bracket and a losers bracket. I think it's not fine at all to go back into one bracket at the end. It's really unfair to the winner of the winners bracket. The winner of the event should be the winner of the winners bracket. Full stop. Period. The winner of the losers bracket wins a consolation event, and that's fine. But them becoming the winner of the whole event is a sort of reversion to the challenge round. Tennis got rid of that just over a century ago. I know it's the sort of thing they do in American sports - where the ultimate victor has to depend on one big finale and every sport has playoffs. I think it's a problem endemic to the American sport systems and one of the reasons I've never got that into baseball, even though I actually really enjoy going to a baseball game. (I find "football" about as entertaining as watching mostly dry paint complete its drying process, so the playoff system is irrelevant to my disdain for that one).

We disagree in how we're approaching this.
What's usually done in a DE tourney is that the winner of the loser's bracket would have to beat the winner of the winner's bracket twice in the final.
With 8 players, that would make for either 14 or 15 total matches. 7 players x 2 losses apiece, plus either one or two final matches.
Right now, 15 matches ae being played. A knockout 16-man draw would also be the same number of matches as now.
Again, but with DE, there would be no dead rubbers, no game or set margins (which really isn't a part of tennis the rest of the year), and less incentive to possibly tank. And players would still get a second chance, which seems to be popular here.

It makes no sense to me if you take the (on paper) 8 best players in the world, have a player lose one match, and then relegate them to playing an exho. Once you lose one match, you move into (call it the...) lower bracket, but you're still alive to win it...just a different path.

 

[helterskelter]

We disagree in how we're approaching this.
What's usually done in a DE tourney is that the winner of the loser's bracket would have to beat the winner of the winner's bracket twice in the final.
With 8 players, that would make for either 14 or 15 total matches. 7 players x 2 losses apiece, plus either one or two final matches.
Right now, 15 matches ae being played. A knockout 16-man draw would also be the same number of matches as now.
Again, but with DE, there would be no dead rubbers, no game or set margins (which really isn't a part of tennis the rest of the year), and less incentive to possibly tank. And players would still get a second chance, which seems to be popular here.

It makes no sense to me if you take the (on paper) 8 best players in the world, have a player lose one match, and then relegate them to playing an exho. Once you lose one match, you move into (call it the...) lower bracket, but you're still alive to win it...just a different path.

There is just no escaping the fact that the DE system functions as though it is a knockout, but an unfair one. The losers bracket should not have the same status as the winner's bracket - giving it that makes for a terrible problem of incentivizing tanking the opening match so as to get the easier draw. It's built into the system that there is no benefit to winning your opening match and much benefit to losing it. That makes the whole opening round of a DE system a set of dead rubbers and shows that it increases the incentive to tank.

I don't find eliminating set and game margins from the event to be a good thing, as I've said.

Second chance in a league system - great.

Second chance in a knockout system - bad.

 

[RaulRamirez]

There is just no escaping the fact that the DE system functions as though it is a knockout, but an unfair one. The losers bracket should not have the same status as the winner's bracket - giving it that makes for a terrible problem of incentivizing tanking the opening match so as to get the easier draw. It's built into the system that there is no benefit to winning your opening match and much benefit to losing it. That makes the whole opening round of a DE system a set of dead rubbers and shows that it increases the incentive to tank.

I don't find eliminating set and game margins from the event to be a good thing, as I've said.

Second chance in a league system - great.

Second chance in a knockout system - bad.

What's the benefit of losing your opening match in a DE?
Once a player loses, they go into the lower (losers) bracket.
I'd have to look at a whole bracket of results in this format, but I think you make it to the final by winning your first three matches.
And once you're in the final, you have to be defeated twice.
If you win your first, but lose you second, you move down. If you win your second but lose your third, you move down.
And if you win out to make it to the final, you need to beat the upper bracket winner twice.
Where is the incentive to want to lose a match?

(Now it can be done where the winner of the lower bracket only has to win one final match, but...)

 

[helterskelter]

What's the benefit of losing your opening match in a DE?
Once a player loses, they go into the lower (losers) bracket.
I'd have to look at a whole bracket of results in this format, but I think you make it to the final by winning your first three matches.
And once you're in the final, you have to be defeated twice.
If you win your first, but lose you second, you move down. If you win your second but lose your third, you move down.
And if you win out to make it to the final, you need to beat the upper bracket winner twice.
Where is the incentive to want to lose a match?

(Now it can be done where the winner of the lower bracket only has to win one final match, but...)

The benefit is that your second and third matches are easier because, as you said, you've "move[d] down." That is somewhat (not completely) mitigated by having to win the "final" twice, but that then means that in the first of the matches in the final, one player has more at stake than the other, and that makes for all sorts of perverse incentives, too, such as one player just trying to make the match a long match.

It just strikes as so very unfair that your benefit for winning the tougher bracket (assuming nobody does tank, which is almost certainly going to be a false assumption) is not very great, given that you face the winner of the easier bracket who has already lost once.

Sorry, but I just find this format truly terrible. I imagine I dislike it as much as you dislike the current format, so...

 

[RaulRamirez]

The benefit is that your second and third matches are easier because, as you said, you've "move[d] down." That is somewhat (not completely) mitigated by having to win the "final" twice, but that then means that in the first of the matches in the final, one player has more at stake than the other, and that makes for all sorts of perverse incentives, too, such as one player just trying to make the match a long match.

It just strikes as so very unfair that your benefit for winning the tougher bracket (assuming nobody does tank, which is almost certainly going to be a false assumption) is not very great, given that you face the winner of the easier bracket who has already lost once.

Sorry, but I just find this format truly terrible. I imagine I dislike it as much as you dislike the current format, so...

Of course, I don't mind a different preference from anyone, but I truly don't see your point here.

Once anyone loses a match (other than in the final) you move to the lower bracket, And all the players, on paper, are terrific.
In a round robin format, you could possibly lose to eliminate another competitor or to avoid playing someone in the semis. (Again, kudos to Sinner who, obviously, did not do that). In a DE, you'd only be adversely affecting yourself. I don't get what you're seeing that I'm not or possibly, vice versa.

 

[tudwell]

In a round robin format, you could possibly lose to eliminate another competitor or to avoid playing someone in the semis. (Again, kudos to Sinner who, obviously, did not do that).

I do think the amount of points and prize money on offer helps mitigate some of the prospective tanking. In one afternoon, a guy can win almost as much as a week’s worth of effort at a 250. I can see someone thinking that’s too many points for one round robin win, but I imagine it does disincentivize tanking.

I wonder what expanding the groups to five players, rather than four, would do. I assume a three-way tie (in this case, three players at 3-1) would be statistically less probable, if only because there are more possible distributions of match wins and losses with five players than with four. If so, that would mean set and game scores would enter into things less frequently, but it would also mean expanding the tournament by another round.

 

[helterskelter]

Of course, I don't mind a different preference from anyone, but I truly don't see your point here.

Once anyone loses a match (other than in the final) you move to the lower bracket, And all the players, on paper, are terrific.
In a round robin format, you could possibly lose to eliminate another competitor or to avoid playing someone in the semis. (Again, kudos to Sinner who, obviously, did not do that). In a DE, you'd only be adversely affecting yourself. I don't get what you're seeing that I'm not or possibly, vice versa.

They are not all equally terrific. Let's say that the WTF had employed the DE system and assume for the sake of argument that nobody tanked their first match (again, I believe that it is endemic to the system that some people will tank their first match).

Then the winners bracket would have been Djokovic, Sinner, Medvedev, and Zverev, and the losers bracket would have been Rune, Tsitsipas, Alcaraz, and Rublev. It seems obvious to me that the former is tougher than the latter and that a "rational actor" would want to do what they could to be in the latter rather than in the former, if being in the latter was compatible with still winning the event overall, even if it were more difficult to do so. Or look at the list of winners at round 1 of the US Open and compare it to the list of losers in round 1 of the US Open.

By the way, what happens to the runner-up in the winner's bracket? They have only lost once, so they shouldn't be eliminated. Do they play the winner of the loser's bracket? If so, that means that that match becomes a sort of semi-final, with the winner then playing the winner of the winner's bracket. It also means that they have played an extra match to the winner of the winner's bracket. Or does the runner-up of the winner's bracket play the runner-up of the loser's bracket in a third-place playoff? But that's unfair because the runner-up of the loser's bracket has already lost twice and so should be eliminated.

To put names on the question in the last paragraph: imagine that the final of the winner's bracket is Sinner v Medvedev (as the last two players left undefeated) and the final of the loser's bracket is Alcaraz v Djokovic (as the other two players who have lost once). Then Sinner advances to the overall final, but what happens to Medvedev? Does he play the winner of Alcaraz v Djokovic to determine who plays Sinner in the overall final?

If so, then it is a benefit to be in the winner's bracket, but it also means that the final will be between players who have not played the same number of matches as each other, which I think is a distortion of the competition.

 

[helterskelter]

I do think the amount of points and prize money on offer helps mitigate some of the prospective tanking. In one afternoon, a guy can win almost as much as a week’s worth of effort at a 250. I can see someone thinking that’s too many points for one round robin win, but I imagine it does disincentivize tanking.

I wonder what expanding the groups to five players, rather than four, would do. I assume a three-way tie (in this case, three players at 3-1) would be statistically less probable, if only because there are more possible distributions of match wins and losses with five players than with four. If so, that would mean set and game scores would enter into things less frequently, but it would also mean expanding the tournament by another round.

I think the better solution to the supposed problem of tanking would be to have just the group winner go through and not the group runner-up.

This could be done either by removing the semi-final round and just having two groups of four and then a final OR by doubling the number of entrants, having four groups of four and then having the winners of the groups play in the semi-finals.

Either way, @RaulRamirez this shows that the round robin format is perfectly compatible with a system that doesn't incentivize tanking.

 

[tudwell]

They are not all equally terrific. Let's say that the WTF had employed the DE system and assume for the sake of argument that nobody tanked their first match (again, I believe that it is endemic to the system that some people will tank their first match).

Just playing devil’s advocate here: If all players have an incentive to tank their first match, then doesn’t that mean no one really has an incentive to tank? That is, if all the best players, wanting to maximize their chances of winning the tournament by playing in the losers bracket, tank their first match, then the losers bracket would in fact be the stronger one and thus more difficult – thus mitigating any real incentive to tank in the first place, assuming everyone’s operating under the same assumptions. Anyone tanking would just have to take the gamble that they’re the only one doing so.

Of course, in reality not everyone would have the same incentive. I can’t imagine Djokovic tanking his first match. He’d beat anyone anyway, most likely. While a Medvedev might think, ”Hey, why not try my chances in the losers bracket?” But even so, if everyone besides Novak tanks, the losers bracket would still be tougher.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I do think the amount of points and prize money on offer helps mitigate some of the prospective tanking. In one afternoon, a guy can win almost as much as a week’s worth of effort at a 250. I can see someone thinking that’s too many points for one round robin win, but I imagine it does disincentivize tanking.

I wonder what expanding the groups to five players, rather than four, would do. I assume a three-way tie (in this case, three players at 3-1) would be statistically less probable, if only because there are more possible distributions of match wins and losses with five players than with four. If so, that would mean set and game scores would enter into things less frequently, but it would also mean expanding the tournament by another round.

To me, this is more of a discussion than a debate, and I appreciate your contributions to it.
In fact, the more I think about it, and also read others' opinions, the more I'm enamored of the double elimination with 8 players.
I think I'd now prefer that to a knockout of 12, 16 or 24, however many, and much prefer it to the present system.

When I posted this thread, I wasn't quite there yet, and this idea actually was proposed by (I forget who) as a reply on another thread -- if without my list of "grievances" about this tourney...

 

[tudwell]

I think the better solution to the supposed problem of tanking would be to have just the group winner go through and not the group runner-up.

This could be done either by removing the semi-final round and just having two groups of four and then a final OR by doubling the number of entrants, having four groups of four and then having the winners of the groups play in the semi-finals.

Either way, @RaulRamirez this shows that the round robin format is perfectly compatible with a system that doesn't incentivize tanking.

That’s a good point, and one I feel silly not having thought of yet in this discussion lol. If there’s only one winner of a group, then no one would ever have any incentive to tank or otherwise try to manipulate scores. Could be four groups of three, too, or really any combination of players so long as only one advances from each group. That does seem the ideal scenario to me.

 

[helterskelter]

To me, this is more of a discussion than a debate, and I appreciate your contributions to it.
In fact, the more I think about it, and also read others' opinions, the more I'm enamored of the double elimination with 8 players.
I think I'd now prefer that to a knockout of 12, 16 or 24, however many, and much prefer it to the present system.

When I posted this thread, I wasn't quite there yet, and this idea actually was proposed by (I forget who) as a reply on another thread -- if without my list of "grievances" about this tourney...

The more I think about it, the less enamored of the double elimination I am! I think I'd now prefer the current system to a knockout of 16 and much prefer either to the double elimination or to a knockout of 12 or 24. I'm not sure whether I'd prefer a single elimination with byes or double elimination. I guess the former, given that byes are already part of the tour, so it would be merely extending a current problem, not introducing a new one.

 

[helterskelter]

Just playing devil’s advocate here: If all players have an incentive to tank their first match, then doesn’t that mean no one really has an incentive to tank? That is, if all the best players, wanting to maximize their chances of winning the tournament by playing in the losers bracket, tank their first match, then the losers bracket would in fact be the stronger one and thus more difficult – thus mitigating any real incentive to tank in the first place, assuming everyone’s operating under the same assumptions. Anyone tanking would just have to take the gamble that they’re the only one doing so.

Of course, in reality not everyone would have the same incentive. I can’t imagine Djokovic tanking his first match. He’d beat anyone anyway, most likely. While a Medvedev might think, ”Hey, why not try my chances in the losers bracket?” But even so, if everyone besides Novak tanks, the losers bracket would still be tougher.

You're right - the incentive to tank arises either when: a) some players are rational actors but others are not, and/or b) when the players are not equally good as each other, and so there are some whom it is especially worth avoiding.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I think the better solution to the supposed problem of tanking would be to have just the group winner go through and not the group runner-up.

This could be done either by removing the semi-final round and just having two groups of four and then a final OR by doubling the number of entrants, having four groups of four and then having the winners of the groups play in the semi-finals.

Either way, @RaulRamirez this shows that the round robin format is perfectly compatible with a system that doesn't incentivize tanking.

If staying with groups, just having the winner go though would greatly reduce if not eliminate tanking...and I'm not saying that it's prevalent now, but just the fact it was discussed on Tennis Channel (as well as on this forum, although not a litmus test for rationality) indicate that it may be a consideration, at present.

Naturally, the more matches that are played (in groups, if sticking to them) before advancement, the less likely that there will be tiebreakers needed. Clearly I am not a fan of tiebreakers. To me, within reason, a win is a win and the flipside is true. While I hate the idea of a tank, I don't like the practice of tiebreakers. Again, a DE tourney (but no sense in more back-and-forth on that) would give a special feel to this tourney, no tiebreaking criteria, and a second chance for all players.

 

[tudwell]

You're right - the incentive to tank arises either when: a) some players are rational actors but others are not, and/or b) when the players are not equally good as each other, and so there are some whom it is especially worth avoiding.

Hmm. Yeah I guess, thinking it through a bit more for myself now, that for example whoever’s drawn to play Novak in the second round is probably greatly incentivized to tank and play literally anyone else in the losers bracket, hoping Djokovic ends up losing two matches to some other set of players, even if the overall depth of the losers bracket ends up being stronger. Of course they may end up having to play Djokovic subsequently anyway, but they increase their odds of avoiding him entirely. Other players wouldn’t necessarily have the same specific incentive to tank their opening match, so we don’t quite get the universal tanking I was talking about in my previous post, but we still (possibly) get tanking.

 

[helterskelter]

If staying with groups, just having the winner go though would greatly reduce if not eliminate tanking...and I'm not saying that it's prevalent now, but just the fact it was discussed on Tennis Channel (as well as on this forum, although not a litmus test for rationality) indicate that it may be a consideration, at present.

Naturally, the more matches that are played (in groups, if sticking to them) before advancement, the less likely that there will be tiebreakers needed. Clearly I am not a fan of tiebreakers. To me, within reason, a win is a win and the flipside is true. While I hate the idea of a tank, I don't like the practice of tiebreakers. Again, a DE tourney (but no sense in more back-and-forth on that) would give a special feel to this tourney, no tiebreaking criteria, and a second chance for all players.

I just sent you a DM on the topic of whether a win is a win. You're entitled to that preference but it is not one that everyone agrees with. I actually think it's rather an unfair feature of knockout events that someone can struggle through six rounds and turn it on for the final. Indeed, I think that in European football, the league is usually a more prestigious event than the cup in part because the league offers a more fine-grained treatment of the results and doesn't just permit scrapping through repeatedly. But, anyway, I don't think preference on this point is really one that is susceptible of rational analysis. It's just a question of taste, and although I think anyone who prefers vanilla to chocolate has faulty tastebuds, until a tastebud test is developed, I can't prove that.

If only the group winner went through, there would never be a benefit to tanking - at least never a benefit that didn't also arise in a knockout event (such as just wanting to placate sponsors by appearing to try).

 

[helterskelter]

Hmm. Yeah I guess, thinking it through a bit more for myself now, that for example whoever’s drawn to play Novak in the second round is probably greatly incentivized to tank and play literally anyone else in the losers bracket, hoping Djokovic ends up losing two matches to some other set of players, even if the overall depth of the losers bracket ends up being stronger. Of course they may end up having to play Djokovic subsequently anyway, but they increase their odds of avoiding him entirely. Other players wouldn’t necessarily have the same specific incentive to tank their opening match, so we don’t quite get the universal tanking I was talking about in my previous post, but we still (possibly) get tanking.

Worth noting that it's hard to measure because although we often assume all players are basing their strategy on maximizing their chances of winning the event, in fact most of them are trying to maximize their chances of progressing deeper in the draw. So, we'd have to do a whole bunch of logic trees to see whether losing in a hard bracket early helped with that or not.

 

[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!

Yeah but if you do that also make it a 2 week event so they have a day-off between matches.
8 matches is a lot to win, but they are mostly best-of-3-setters and a day-off in between each should make it doable.
But this thing will never be as valuable as a slam title, so might as well leave the final as best-of-3-sets actually.
The fact its indoors will always hurt its legitimacy, because real men don't need a roof.

 

[Jardinier]

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)

‘The Future Stars Tournament’ was perhaps only my awkward name suggestion. I meant basically the players finishing in 9-14 places in ATP race, 6 players would be ready for mini tournament and as a possible replacement for injured players in the main event. All of them would be awarded with 50 points as an acknowledgment of their achievement, that is the placement in ATP race; and winning players in semi-finals would get additional 50 points, altogether 100 points, mini tournament winner altogether 250 points.

We should realise that all tournaments are notionally ‘discriminatory’; players have to qualify for any tournament via ranking or actual qualification for a tournament. Therefore, it should be reminded that the qualification criterion for ATP finals are the overall results during the whole calendar year; playing the final tournament of the year is not whatsoever an exhibition, but a great achievement.

BO5 matches in the semi-finals and final would bring an ‘air’ of a grand slam. BO5 are, I may say, almost universally regarded as almost twice more demanding and thrilling to BO3. By playing 3 most important matches in BO5 it would immensely enrich the tournament.

Two free days are improvement on the present situation where the second starting group could be at disadvantage if players had a very tough last match in round robin.

By expanding ATP finals by two days only, it would significantly increase the marketing potential of the event – create a bigger prestige, and that way also create a bigger interest from future applicants for the event; it would be almost as 5th slam.

The Mini tournament would not be as a filler only, but it would be a chance to see ‘50% more’ of the best players in tennis, which at the same time would provide adequate time for physical, mental and emotional preparation of the semi-finalists. Those two free days also provide the time for ‘emotional preparation’ of tennis fans. People as species are creatures of habits and rituals and ‘crazy’ tennis fans crave for slams because of some specificities as Bo5 battles. One day break between matches is a very important feature in slams, and not only for the players. I do not want to be perceived as a politician, but I believe, these or similar changes would be improvements for all stakeholders –players, fans and the commercial side.

 

[-NN-]

The winners bracket finalist often gets perks in esport, such as a game lead or a map win. Would be funny to see in tennis.

Make it a 16-player KO tournament, award a maximum of 1999 points to the winner and designate the event as an official 5th Major. Finals and only finals should be Bo5, with a day of rest after the semis.

 

[ALCARAZWON]

The winners bracket finalist often gets perks in esport, such as a game lead or a map win. Would be funny to see in tennis.

Make it a 16-player KO tournament, award a maximum of 1999 points to the winner and designate the event as an official 5th Major. Finals and only finals should be Bo5, with a day of rest after the semis.

And play it in Saudi Arabia for HUGE $20 million winner's cheque.