if two players are tied for one place, does head to head take precedence over sets won? example, suppose fed beats roddick in straight sets, same for gonzo over davydenko. that would leave fed roddick gonzo ,all on 2-1 matches won.sets 5-2,4-3,4-3,. would gonzo exit by losing to roddick?roddick has apparently already qualified. simiar possibilities in other group.

2007 rule book. head-to-head takes precedence when only 2 players are tied. when 3 are tied h2h comes last. i'm fairly sure the atp goofed when they said that roddick had already qualified. davydenko should still be in the hunt as well.

Roddick has already qualified for semis. - If roddick beats fed, he qualifies with 3 wins. - If roddick loses to Fed and Gonzo loses To Davydenko, Roddick qualifies. Roddick, Federer - 2 wins, Gonzo, Davy - 1 win - If Roddick loses to Fed and Gonzo beats Davydenko, then Roddick, Fed and Gonzo are 3 way tied with 2 wins each. So have to look at sets. Roddick is currently 4-1, Fed 3-2 and Gonzo 2-3 - Fed beats Rod 2-1, Gonzo beats Davy 2-1. So, finally Rod 5-3, Fed 5-3, Gonzo 4-4. Fed and Rod qualifies. - Fed beats Rod 2-1, Gonzo beats Davy 2-0. So Rod 5-3, Fed 5-3, Gonzo 4-3. Still Fed and Rod qualifies as they won more sets then Gonzo, 5 to 4. - Fed beats Rod 2-0, Gonzo beats Davy 2-1. So Fed 5-2, Rod 4-3, Gonzo 4-4. Fed and Rod qualifies (he lost less sets than Gonzo) - Fed beats Rod 2-0, Gonzo beats Davy 2-0. So Fed 5-2, Rod 4-3, Gonzo 4-3. Fed qualifies. Since Rod and Gonzo are same, on head to head Rod will qualify. This specifies that Fed will definitely qualify as #1 if he beat Roddick, never mind the sets or Gonzo's results. Poor Gonzo, he needs some luck.

the rule book clearly states set percent, *then* game percent, and only then head-to-head if two players are still tied. gonzo can still overtake roddick in game percent (he won't though). similarly, davydenko can still overtake fed.

more analysis this is more of a mathematical exercise.(being unlikely) if fed b roddick 6-2,6-1, and gonzo b davydenko 6-1,6-0, then roddick and gonzo would be tied on matches w/l (2-1) and sets w/l (4-3) , but gonzo would indeed move ahead of roddick on games ratio (31-28 roddick versus 34-30 gonzo).thus fed and gonzo would qualify. if roysid is correct, this analysis is redundant. if rahul is correct however(as i understand you) ,sets and games are analysed before h2h ,roddick is knocked out.

Yes, head to head takes precedence if two are tied, sets and games if three are tied. Roddick has not automatically qualified yet.

Yes, Roddick has qualified. If he loses in straights and Gonzalez wins in straights they would be tied in the sets ratio (4-3) and Federer would have a better ratio than both (5-2) so look at the last paragraph iv) which is the key here. Federer would be the superior player, and the Roddick-Gonzalez tie would be broken by head-to-head (Roddick wins). ) The final standings of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply: a) Greatest number of wins; b) Greatest number of matches played; c) Head-to-head results if only 2 players are tied, or if 3 players are tied, then: i) If 3 players each have one win, a player having played less than all 3 matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to the Single Elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the 2 players tied with 1-2 records; or ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or iii) Highest percentage of games won. iv) If (i), (ii) or (iii) produce one superior player (first place), or one inferior player (third place), and the two remaining players are tied, the tie between those two players shall be broken by head-to-head record.

* The final standings of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply: (iv) is only applied if (i), (ii), and (iii) are still tied. your analysis has bumped (iv) (head-to-head) ahead of (iii) (game percentage). what's unfortunate here is that davydenko may think he's already eliminated, when (by the 2007 rule book, at least) he should still be in contention.

I don't think you're right, Rahul, the point of rule iv) is that you revert to the standard head-to-head rule once you have knocked out the third guy through any of i), ii) and iii). Basically, i), ii) and iii) are only used to eliminate the third guy. I do agree with you that the wording of the rule-book is a bit ambiguous, but i'm sure this is true...

2-0 mean nothing!!! happen in 1997 Moya 2-1 On the RR final day, Sampras (1-1) play Rafter (2-0) If Rafter win, Rafter 3-0 Moya 2-1 Sampras 1-2 Rafter win the group, Sampras out -------------------------- If Sampras win in three Sampras 2-1 Rafter 2-1 Moya 2-1 Sampras win the group, Moya out due to worst percentage -------------------------- If Sampras win in straight (real case) Moya 2-1 Sampras 2-1 Rafter 2-1 Moya win the group, Rafter out due to worst percentage ------------------------- All Rafter need to do is winning one set, but he can't do it

in 2002, final RR match, Moya (2-0) could have let Costa (1-1)win their match-up to make them both into Semi, eliminating Hewitt (2-1).

but he didn't, he won the group and play JCF in semi, which he lost, if he choose to lost to Costa, then he play Federer, which is weaker than JCF by then

yamor: that seems to be the consensus, and i won't argue the point. that rule section should then just be rewritten with (iv) appearing earlier in the structure. speaking of rewriting the rules, it looks like aspelin/knowle have won their group ahead of knowles/nestor due to set *percentage* (4-2 being greater than 5-3). this is peculiar. i think set *differential* would make more sense here.