So, Zverev beat Alkaraz in first round and is out before third round... This format...

[tennis_error]

su.ck.s

Medvedev and Rune get free wins against the injured Tsitsipas, but Novak get rested opponent to fight for semis.
So, Rune lost to Novak, got free win against Tsi and played an opponent who already qualified.
Luckily, Sinner played strong and fair and Novak deservingly stayed in the tournament...

And, don't get me wrong, names are not important, it could be opposite to any of players i mentioned... system is just bad....

 

[StrongRule]

As if we didn't know it before. In 2011 Djokovic was actually close to making it out of the group with 2 losses (one of them a 6-3 6-1 loss) and one match which he barely won in a final set tiebreak.

 

[travlerajm]

The system was fair. The big difference here is that normally a loss is a loss and a win is a win. But here, it’s better to win in straights and make sure you win a set in your losses. Z blew it by losing to Med in straights.

 

[TripleATeam]

Medvedev and Rune get free wins against the injured Tsitsipas,

Medvedev?

 

[Deleted member 629564]

[content deleted by user]

 

[Max G.]

It's a round robin. If the standings are close it goes to weird tiebreaks.

If a player is obviously the best then they make it in. Otherwise not. Doesn't seem wrong to me. If there's three players who are tied on match wins then it goes to set/game tiebreaks.

 

[alexio]

its kinda a zest in a tennis world, boring if everything the same, so all is fine lol

 

[tennis_error]

Medvedev?

Sinner, of course, thanks.

 

[Lauren_Girl']

As if we didn't know it before. In 2011 Djokovic was actually close to making it out of the group with 2 losses (one of them a 6-3 6-1 loss) and one match which he barely won in a final set tiebreak.

And Radwanska and Cibulkova won the whole event in 2015 and 2016 with just 1 Round Robin win (and 2 defeats). The system is bad but that's how it is. It's the same for everyone.

Djokovic was also eliminated in 2009 with 2 wins, including a straight set win against Nadal. Söderling tanked the last set of his last match against Davydenko and Djokovic was toast. The same happened to Nadal in 2019, he was eliminated despite 2 epic wins against Medvedev and Tsitsipas.... all because Zverev beat Medvedev in the last match.

What do you guys suggest? No more groups? I don't know. Would it still be the ATP Finals if we directly start with 8 seeds and 4 quarterfinals?

 

[Razer]

ATP Finals need to be replaced by 16 Top Ranked players elimination format

Best of 5

4 Solid rounds to determine who takes the Big cup.

 

[Arak]

It was obviously a tank job by Medvedev. He probably thinks Sinner is more preferable to Djokovic.

 

[aldeayeah]

Zverev beat Alcaraz who beat Medvedev who beat Zverev. Only two can go to the semi. That's all.

 

[Terenigma]

It does suck but it's the only fair way. The tournament has been going for long enough that EVERY player should know that your best chance is to win every match in straight sets to give yourself the best chance, I know that, you know that, they know that. Medvedev and Alcaraz did that, Zverev didn't.

I think one change they could realistically make is have both matches take place at the same time. Obviously event wise that wouldn't work unless there was two courts but fairness wise it would rule out any chance of players tanking or having less effort not knowing what the other result will be.

 

[FedeRadi]

I think it would be better, in R2, if they play "R1a Winner vs R1b Loser" and "R1b Winner vs R1a Loser" instead of "Winner vs Winner" and "Loser vs Loser".

-If 2 players got two wins they're in before R3. They got it.
-If 2 losers in R1 win in R2, they have a four-way tie at 1-1. Two "make or break" matches in R3.
-If 1 loser and 1 winner wins, there's a situation similar to the one of this years, with 2 1-1 players who played between them in R1. But at least, who won the match in R1 plays vs a possible unmotivated 2-0 player in R3. With the current format, who lost the R1 match has this advantage(Rune, Alcaraz this year).

 

[nolefam_2024]

So you want us to just ignore the ass whooping CA gave to Rublev and Medvedev and focus on 1 close match win for Zverev ?

If Zverev was so capable, he would have at least won a set vs Medvedev.

The margins are razer thin and this fraud doesn't deserve it.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Medvedev?

His name is literally tennis error, its only natural he made this error.

 

[aldeayeah]

I think it would be better, in R2, if they play "R1a Winner vs R1b Loser" and "R1b Winner vs R1a Loser" instead of "Winner vs Winner" and "Loser vs Loser".

-If 2 players got two wins they're in before R3. They got it.
-If 2 losers in R1 win in R2, they have a four-way tie at 1-1. Two "make or break" matches in R3.
-If 1 loser and 1 winner wins, there's a situation similar to the one of this years, with 2 1-1 players who played between them in R1. But at least, who won the match in R1 plays vs a possible unmotivated 2-0 player in R3. With the current format, who lost the R1 match has this advantage(Rune, Alcaraz this year).

That maximizes the amount of dead rubbers which can hurt interest.

 

[jm1980]

I think it would be better, in R2, if they play "R1a Winner vs R1b Loser" and "R1b Winner vs R1a Loser" instead of "Winner vs Winner" and "Loser vs Loser".

-If 2 players got two wins they're in before R3. They got it.
-If 2 losers in R1 win in R2, they have a four-way tie at 1-1. Two "make or break" matches in R3.
-If 1 loser and 1 winner wins, there's a situation similar to the one of this years, with 2 1-1 players who played between them in R1. But at least, who won the match in R1 plays vs a possible unmotivated 2-0 player in R3. With the current format, who lost the R1 match has this advantage(Rune, Alcaraz this year).

Doing it this way makes it possible for two players to be eliminated by day 2

Also the current format doesn't give an "advantage" to the player who lost the R1 match. It only seems that way because the players who lost the R1 matches entered day 3 with a better sets won-lost record (Rune 3-2, Djokovic 3-3; Alcaraz 3-2, Zverev 2-3)

 

[SonnyT]

Of course it's fair. In this format, win in 2 > win in 3, lose in 3 > lose in 2

 

[Pheasant]

Win all of your matches and you won’t get screwed over. It’s that simple. The format is just fine.

The only thing that I don’t like is that if a guy retires in a match quite early, then the other guys gets awarded 2 sets. That to me is bunk. That makes no sense to me.

otherwise, the format is fine.

 

[Connor35]

What do you guys suggest? No more groups? I don't know. Would it still be the ATP Finals if we directly start with 8 seeds and 4 quarterfinals?

Agree. I LOVE it as is.

The only other similar alternative is a double-elimination style situation. WIth 8 players, double elimination would mean 14 or 15 matches, similar our current 15 matches.

 

[jm1980]

As if we didn't know it before. In 2011 Djokovic was actually close to making it out of the group with 2 losses (one of them a 6-3 6-1 loss) and one match which he barely won in a final set tiebreak.

The only way a player with 2 losses advances out of the group is if there are 3 players with 2 losses. So you have to pick one to go through

 

[jm1980]

su.ck.s

Medvedev and Rune get free wins against the injured Tsitsipas, but Novak get rested opponent to fight for semis.
So, Rune lost to Novak, got free win against Tsi and played an opponent who already qualified.
Luckily, Sinner played strong and fair and Novak deservingly stayed in the tournament...

And, don't get me wrong, names are not important, it could be opposite to any of players i mentioned... system is just bad....

Every year we get posts like this. It's a round robin, stuff like this will happen. If Novak took care of business and finished off Sinner, or beat Hurkacz in straights, then he would have gone through with no issues

A player withdrawing isn't really an issue with the format. If you had a knockout instead, and the winner of Rune-Tsitsipas played the winner of Djokovic-Hurkacz, and Tsitsipas pulled a similar stunt, Rune would have had a lot more rest before the final. It is what it is

That is not to say there's no room for improvement. For example one obvious rule change would be to discard the result against the fourth player in 3 way ties, so in a scenario like this, Tsitsipas withdrawing has less of an impact.

 

[Sereger]

And Radwanska and Cibulkova won the whole event in 2015 and 2016 with just 1 Round Robin win (and 2 defeats). The system is bad but that's how it is. It's the same for everyone.

Djokovic was also eliminated in 2009 with 2 wins, including a straight set win against Nadal. Söderling tanked the last set of his last match against Davydenko and Djokovic was toast. The same happened to Nadal in 2019, he was eliminated despite 2 epic wins against Medvedev and Tsitsipas.... all because Zverev beat Medvedev in the last match.

What do you guys suggest? No more groups? I don't know. Would it still be the ATP Finals if we directly start with 8 seeds and 4 quarterfinals?

They were eliminated for having worst set W-L%. The other 2 of the group also had 2 wins. At least it's straightforward and fair in terms of statistics imo.

 

[FedeRadi]

That maximizes the amount of dead rubbers which can hurt interest.

Doing it this way makes it possible for two players to be eliminated by day 2

Also the current format doesn't give an "advantage" to the player who lost the R1 match. It only seems that way because the players who lost the R1 matches entered day 3 with a better sets won-lost record (Rune 3-2, Djokovic 3-3; Alcaraz 3-2, Zverev 2-3)

I know there is a possibility where there are 2 dead rubbers in day 3, but that's fair IMO. If 2 players both beat each of the other ones, they got the access to SF. I understand, also, why organizators don't make it this way. But as a sport fan: fairness > drama IMO.

Djokovic/Zverev had worst sets won-lost record than Rune/Alcaraz entering Day 3 because they already played the best player of the group(The 2-0 one: Sinner and Medvedev) while the other one played the worst one(The 0-2 one: Tsitsipas and Rublev), and the advantage Rune and Alcaraz had was play the 2-0 player when he was already qualified for SFs. Sinner honored the match playing 100%, Medvedev not so much IMO.
We can't have a proof of this, but I think Alcaraz would have lost to Medvedev if he played him in day 2.

 

[onyxrose81]

So you want us to just ignore the ass whooping CA gave to Rublev and Medvedev and focus on 1 close match win for Zverev ?

If Zverev was so capable, he would have at least won a set vs Medvedev.

The margins are razer thin and this fraud doesn't deserve it.

Agreed. Zverev did himself in by losing so tamely to Med.

 

[Clay lover]

Win all of your matches and you won’t get screwed over. It’s that simple. The format is just fine.

The only thing that I don’t like is that if a guy retires in a match quite early, then the other guys gets awarded 2 sets. That to me is bunk. That makes no sense to me.

otherwise, the format is fine.

But at the same time two sets to the uninjured is the fairest outcome under the format as it would have been the most likely one had the match played out, given the other was injured.

Three sets or a draw or a cancellation of the match all seem like the unfairer treatment - the uninjured could have won in two had the match played out, and is now being denied that outcome not out of his own fault but instead just because the other retired.

Why should he deserve a less ideal outcome (fewer points gained) for that match when it isn't even his own fault?

 

[jackson vile]

Good point

 

[timnz]

su.ck.s

Medvedev and Rune get free wins against the injured Tsitsipas, but Novak get rested opponent to fight for semis.
So, Rune lost to Novak, got free win against Tsi and played an opponent who already qualified.
Luckily, Sinner played strong and fair and Novak deservingly stayed in the tournament...

And, don't get me wrong, names are not important, it could be opposite to any of players i mentioned... system is just bad....

So many sports use a round robin format eg Rugby World Cup.

 

[Oval_Solid]

only rublev thinks its unfair

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

only rublev thinks its unfair

Zverev is the only person this was unfair for... beats alcaraz and finishes by owning rublev in straights but doesnt qualify

 

[platypus50]

Well maybe if Zverev didn't hit one of the worst FHs ever when trying to close out the opening set (and failed...) against Medvedev in his RR match - we'd be having a different conversation but he didn't so too bad for Zverev

 

[ppma]

Zverev beat Alcaraz who beat Medvedev who beat Zverev. Only two can go to the semi. That's all.

Yes. One of the problems comes when one of the contenders is automatically classified and can tank the last match.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Zverev beat Alcaraz who beat Medvedev who beat Zverev. Only two can go to the semi. That's all.

By that statement Zverev should be in beating the guy who beat the guy who beat him, and beating the best player alcaraz

 

[Wander]

The format is fine. Players know that if they lose a single match their fate is no longer entirely in their own hands, and that's perfectly fair. You lost a match!

 

[thrust]

It does suck but it's the only fair way. The tournament has been going for long enough that EVERY player should know that your best chance is to win every match in straight sets to give yourself the best chance, I know that, you know that, they know that. Medvedev and Alcaraz did that, Zverev didn't.

I think one change they could realistically make is have both matches take place at the same time. Obviously event wise that wouldn't work unless there was two courts but fairness wise it would rule out any chance of players tanking or having less effort not knowing what the other result will be.a

It is unfair that one of today's semis will be in the afternoon while the other is at 9PM tonight, local time. I recall that in Paris, they played one match just after the other, which is more fair.

 

[tennis_error]

So many sports use a round robin format eg Rugby World Cup.

Yes, but it's team sports. If someone is injured he can be replaced in team. Here, the mess was done by TSI retirement where he gave by to two opponents and the rested opponent to the third one.

 

[SonnyT]

So? Zverev beat Alcaraz who beat Medvedev who beat Zverev. He should know that, in case of 3-way tie, the one who wins more and loses fewer sets, wins. Seeding only counts at qualification,

 

[BauerAlmeida]

As if we didn't know it before. In 2011 Djokovic was actually close to making it out of the group with 2 losses (one of them a 6-3 6-1 loss) and one match which he barely won in a final set tiebreak.

How was he close?

 

[ND-13]

Why do we keep not understanding round robin and knock out ?

It is not the total amount of matches that we win here or it does not make the player any less valuable because they lost a match.

It is about winning the most important ones

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

The format is fine. Players know that if they lose a single match their fate is no longer entirely in their own hands, and that's perfectly fair. You lost a match!

But its unrealistic to not lose a match here

 

[StrongRule]

How was he close?

Had Ferrer beaten Berdych in the last match (and he was 6-3 4-3 and 40-15 up on serve), Djokovic would get out of the group.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

[content deleted by user]