The rules of the ATP finals are completely unfair

[Sport]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Talk about sour grapes because Nadal might not qualify.

These have been the rules for years, just cause it doesn’t help your player now doesn’t make it any less fair.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

WTF is a glorified exo anyway, right?

 

[StrongRule]

Pathetic tournament. I really hope Nadal never plays it again. And yeah, now haters will come saying I hate it because Nadal never won it. That's not true. I never had anything against Miami or Shanghai. But WTF is a joke, and for sure it should never be compared to a slam.

 

[Street]

Of course, like how Fifa World Cup is unfair. You do realise that the number of wins is not important but how you stack up against the players in a group and in some groups a person with 1 point will qualify and in others a person with 2 points won't qualify, so it depends who is in your group and if you can be in the top 2 results-wise.

 

[Sport]

Talk about sour grapes because Nadal might not qualify.

You changed the topic, I am not talking only about Nadal but about every player.

Player A: 2 victories in his group.
Player B: 2 victories in his gorup.

Player A classifies and player B does not classify despite having made exactly the same merits. Can you explain me how is it fair?

It creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

You changed the topic, I am not talking only about Nadal but about every player.

Player A: 2 victories in his group.
Player B: 2 victories in his gorup.

Player A classifies and player B does not classify despite having made exactly the same merits. Can you explain me how is it fair?

It creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

As @Italian Stallion said, would you rather the tournament be a simple knockout situation like normal? In which case Nadal would have already been knocked out.

Otherwise, win all your matches and your guaranteed to get through.

 

[TheAssassin]

Well it depends on how other players in the group did too, as well as each of the scorelines.

Djokovic got knocked out of round robin with a 2-1 record a decade ago. It was quite frustrating but stuff like that happens...

 

[Krish0608]

I swear VB is the most butthurt fan base i have ever seen. Whining all the time, being bitter and playing the victim all the freaking time. All this, when Rafa still has a chance to qualify. If Rafa somehow pulls off a miracle and wins this one. None of the VB will utter a word about the "unfairness" of the tournament. Such hypocrites.

 

[40-15_forever]

Glorified exhibition is right. The fact that it is worth 1500 points is a joke. Rankings should be based solely on the regular season results and the head to head versus the larger field.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Pathetic tournament. I really hope Nadal never plays it again. And yeah, now haters will come saying I hate it because Nadal never won it. That's not true. I never had anything against Miami or Shanghai. But WTF is a joke, and for sure it should never be compared to a slam.

 

[zipplock]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

"Fair" is a four letter F-word. One of the worst words in the English language. Right up there with "Deserve".

Not the "same merits" as they played different people in different groups. Nothing is ever the "same".

 

[jm1980]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

The entire premise is already false, because they most certainly do not have the same merits.

Djokovic is 3-2 in sets while Nadal is 2-3

If Nadal took a set from Zverev and beat Medvedev in straights, he would not be in this situation

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Lol.

Nadal he been the worst player of this tournament except for Berrettini.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

NO?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Imagine your player loses a match therefore putting him at risk of not qualifying and you have the audacity to blame the format?

If Nadal didn’t lose he’d be safe, it’s his fault for losing. Don’t go crying about the format when it doesn’t suit your player. These were the rules going in and these have been the rules for quite a while.

 

[Sport]

The entire premise is already false, because they most certainly do not have the same merits.

Djokovic is 3-2 in sets while Nadal is 2-3

If Nadal took a set from Zverev and beat Medvedev in straights, he would not be in this situation

Irrelevant. Tennis is about the number of matches you win, not the number of sets you win. Federer won the same number of sets than Nadal at Wimbledon 2008, yet Nadal won Wimbledon 2008 because he won one more match than Federer.

It is indeed quite unfair if Djokovic with 2 victories classifies and Nadal with 2 victories is eliminated.

Other years a player from the group A can classify with only 1 victory, while a player of the group B can fail to classify with 2 victories. That is not fair at all, because the player with less achievements would classify.

 

[StrongRule]

Imagine your player loses a match therefore putting him at risk of not qualifying and you have the audacity to blame the format?

If Nadal didn’t lose he’d be safe, it’s his fault for losing. Don’t go crying about the format when it doesn’t suit your player. These were the rules going in and these have been the rules for quite a while.

If Nadal had to play Berrettini instead of Zverev then I guess he wouldn't have lost. Federer and Djokovic also lost to Zverev last year.

 

[Sport]

NO?

In this context if can exist. Djokovic can classify with 2 victories and Nadal can get eliminated with 2 victories. Same merits, different benefits.

 

[Max G.]

The rules for both groups are the same.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

If Nadal had to play Berrettini instead of Zverev then I guess he wouldn't have lost. Federer and Djokovic also lost to Zverev last year.

The same Zverev that was smoked by Tsitsipas today? Spare me the “oh if only he had an easier match like Fed did”.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

If Nadal had to play Berrettini instead of Zverev then I guess he wouldn't have lost. Federer and Djokovic also lost to Zverev last year.

Look at you now saying Nadal wouldn't have lost to someone he isn't facing. You'd be crapping your pants as always even if Nadal really had to play Berrettini in London.

 

[Red Rick]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

It's possible to win 1 and qualify.

You can go 3-2 and win tournament, you can go 4-1 and lose.

 

[KINGROGER]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

Incorrect. 1 player would have performed worse than 2 players in their group. Rules are the same for all players.

 

[Sport]

The rules for both groups are the same.

Same merits, different benefits is never fair.

One player from one group can classify and another player from another group may not classify despite the fact that both made the same merits (2 victories).

 

[Sport]

Incorrect. 1 player would have performed worse than 2 players in their group. Rules are the same for all players.

So Djokovic wins 2 matches and classify while Nadal wins 2 matches and does not classify. How is that the same? Same merits, different benefits.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

It's possible to win 1 and qualify.

You can go 3-2 and win tournament, you can go 4-1 and lose.

Yup, 2016 WTA YEC. Kerber wins her group 3-0, Cibulková goes 1-2. Kerber makes the final with a 4–0 W/L to Cibulková’s 2-2 but Domi ends up winning the final and thus goes 3-2 while Kerber was 4-1.

Same thing could happen on the ATP in theory.

 

[KINGROGER]

So Djokovic wins 2 matches and classify while Nadal wins 2 matches and does not classify. How is that the same? Same merits, different benefits.

Nadal won less sets - different merits.

 

[veroniquem]

The difference is that Djoko straight setted the guy he beat and won a set in the match he lost whereas Nadal got destroyed in the match he lost and lost a set in the one he won.
That being said, RR format is wacko and I've never liked that a player could lose a match (or more) and still win the event. AFAIC the big 3 should be out at this point, all of them, which would spare us all the bickering and hair pulling threads and would let us ooh and aah at Tsitsi and Thiem's level instead

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Same merits, different benefits is never fair.

One player from one group can classify and another player from another group may not classify despite the fact that both made the same merits (2 victories).

If you're a so called GOAT contender like Nadal in a group of mugs that has one slam final between them, then it shouldn't be that hard.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

In this context if can exist. Djokovic can defeat Federer 2-1 and Nadal can defeat Tsitsipas 2-0. That would put both Djokovic and Nadal with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets. Same merits, different benefits.

You barely turned a Federer fan, and now you are *****ing all over the nadal and his wisdom. You Federer extremists are the worst.

 

[reaper]

The 2 players with the best record from each group go through. What could be fairer?

 

[jm1980]

But they CAN have the same merits, and still Nadal can fail to classify while Djokovic would classify, which would be unfair.

If Djokovic defeats Federer 2-1 and Nadal defeats Tsitsipas 2-0, Djokovic would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets while Nadal would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets.

That is to say, same merits, but not the same benefits.

Math doesn't seem to be your strong suit... If this transpires, Djokovic would indeed be 5-3, but Nadal would be 4-3...

Last I checked, 2+2=4 so I'm curious as to how you think Nadal can win 5 sets here

 

[Djokovic2011]

Pathetic tournament. I really hope Nadal never plays it again. And yeah, now haters will come saying I hate it because Nadal never won it. That's not true. I never had anything against Miami or Shanghai. But WTF is a joke, and for sure it should never be compared to a slam.

It isn't.

 

[RF-18]

But they CAN have the same merits, and still Nadal can fail to classify while Djokovic would classify, which would be unfair.

If Djokovic defeats Federer 2-1 and Nadal defeats Tsitsipas 2-0, Djokovic would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets while Nadal would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets.

That is to say, same merits, but not the same benefits.

As 5 different people have already told you, it DEPENDS on how your other group members do in their matches aswell. What is so hard to understand?

 

[jm1980]

As 5 different people have already told you, it DEPENDS on how your other group members do aswell. What is so hard to understand?

Math is the "thoughest" thing of all time for the OP... He seems to think 2+2=5

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal won less sets - different merits.

Fewer. Sorry KR.

 

[The Green Mile]

 

[TimHenmanATG]

The thing I really struggle with is how do they work out the sets won versus the sets lost calculation?

I guess that you'd have to be Paul Dirac to truly understand that.

 

[jm1980]

The thing I really struggle with is how do they work out the sets won versus the sets lost calculation?

I guess that you'd have to be Paul Dirac to truly understand that.

You need Dirac's help to add up 6? Because that's as many sets as you can win in 3 matches

FFS it's not that hard people, a kindergartner can add numbers up to 6

 

[Tiki-Taka]

That's what happens when players are drawn in groups. They won't always deliver the same results. It's about doing as well as you can in your own group rather than look at what is happening in the other one.

Anyway, World Tour Finals is kind enough to give another chance even after losing a match. Everywhere else you are out immediately. Can't complain about that. Nadal looked done today as well but fought to give himself a chance. Makes it an interesting spectacle...

 

[TimHenmanATG]

You need Dirac's help to add up 6? Because that's as many sets as you can win in 3 matches

FFS it's not that hard people, a kindergartner can add numbers up to 6

Oh deary me...

 

[Mark-Touch]

WTF is a glorified exo anyway, right?

That's one way to look at it.
Another is to say, let's cut out the crap and get right down to business.
We know that in slams the first week and a half is just window dressing because of seeding.

 

[anarosevoli]

But they CAN have the same merits, and still Nadal can fail to classify while Djokovic would classify, which would be unfair.

If Djokovic defeats Federer 2-1 and Nadal defeats Tsitsipas 2-0, Djokovic would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets while Nadal would end up with 2 victories and 5-3 in sets.

That is to say, same merits, but not the same benefits.

What's that against the matchup problems in normal mode where A defeats C, B defeats D, then A wins it all defeating B but everybody knows A would not have had a chance against D. Compared to this complaining about numbers of sets in different groups is really funny, especially when the obvious thing is that one player was better than one in his group and the other better than two.

RR format is definitely more fair. There are 6 matches instead of 3 to determine the group winners. It's much more likely that the best players succeed, much less random results. This is pure logic, there can be no discussion ever about it.

 

[tacou]

The goal is to finish top 2 in your group, just like the goal is to get through your half of the draw at any other tournament.
What happens in the other group/side of the draw is irrelevant.

 

[StrongRule]

Well, Zverev's pathetic performance against Tsitsipas gifted Djokovic the YE#1.

 

[Chadalina]

If Djokovic wins 2 matches in his group he can classify. If Nadal wins 2 matches in his group, he can fail to classify.

That is not fair at all, it creates a double standard by which 2 players, despite having made the same merits, do not receive the same benefit.

One big group, everyone plays everyone is what id like to see.

 

[guitarra]

Rules are not perfect but they are same for all players. What’s the other option to have more than 7 matches? Knockout with 8 players in the draw would be a bit random

 

[TimHenmanATG]

FFS, everyone knows that sets won/lost is the tie-breaker at the London exho. It's hardly rocket science.

We are taking the p*ss out of the fact that this could even be a realistic consideration in a credible professional tennis tournament.

 

[Sephiroth]

Maybe have a rematch between the two players who have won 2 games each but then they'd be playing an extra match...no wonder this tournament is a friendly exho you play between your pals to pass the time between November and Christmas.