What changes, if any, would you make to the ATP Finals (WTF/YEC)?

[RaulRamirez]

Most would probably agree that this year's edition has been among the better ones in recent history.
YE #1 is still to be determined, younger players have (so far) been taking it to The Big 3 to some extent, Rafa's comeback yesterday, tonight's Fed/Novak showdown to advance just one of these legends to the semis, and...at least three very compelling matches.

This isn't always the case, and I've never been in love with this tourney for a variety of reasons.
What changes, if any, would you make?

• Would you keep the RR (group) system, go to a standard knockout draw, or modify it otherwise?
• Keep it to 8 players or expand the draw?
• Change the surface or conditions, or keep it (at least roughly) as is?
• Points awarded? Would you keep it as is, reduce the number of points, or (doubtful, but) increase points awarded?

I don't believe in surveys, as they're not really scientific, anyway. Good, civil qualitative posts only.

 

[youngpolyhater]

Bring back carpet courts and best of 5 finals

Everything else is perfectly fine

 

[blablavla]

change the surface once a while.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Most would probably agree that this year's edition has been among the better ones in recent history.
YE #1 is still to be determined, younger players have (so far) been taking it to The Big 3 to some extent, Rafa's comeback yesterday, tonight's Fed/Novak showdown to advance just one of these legends to the semis, and...at least three very compelling matches.

This isn't always the case, and I've never been in love with this tourney for a variety of reasons.
What changes, if any, would you make?

• Would you keep the RR (group) system, go to a standard knockout draw, or modify it otherwise?
• Keep it to 8 players or expand the draw?
• Change the surface or conditions, or keep it (at least roughly) as is?
• Points awarded? Would you keep it as is, reduce the number of points, or (doubtful, but) increase points awarded?

I don't believe in surveys, as they're not really scientific, anyway. Good, civil qualitative posts only.

• Would you keep the RR (group) system, go to a standard knockout draw, or modify it otherwise? > keep RR
• Keep it to 8 players or expand the draw? > keep it to 8
• Change the surface or conditions, or keep it (at least roughly) as is? > bring back carpet
• Points awarded? Would you keep it as is, reduce the number of points, or (doubtful, but) increase points awarded? > as is (or increase)
• bonus: bring back the bo5 final

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Most would probably agree that this year's edition has been among the better ones in recent history.
YE #1 is still to be determined, younger players have (so far) been taking it to The Big 3 to some extent, Rafa's comeback yesterday, tonight's Fed/Novak showdown to advance just one of these legends to the semis, and...at least three very compelling matches.

This isn't always the case, and I've never been in love with this tourney for a variety of reasons.
What changes, if any, would you make?

• Would you keep the RR (group) system, go to a standard knockout draw, or modify it otherwise?
• Keep it to 8 players or expand the draw?
• Change the surface or conditions, or keep it (at least roughly) as is?
• Points awarded? Would you keep it as is, reduce the number of points, or (doubtful, but) increase points awarded?

I don't believe in surveys, as they're not really scientific, anyway. Good, civil qualitative posts only.

Best of 5 finals.

 

[I Am Finnish]

B05 finals

 

[Sport]

Important change:

Eiminate the Group Phase. It allows a player of the group A with only 1 win to classify and a player of the group B with 2 wins to be eliminated. Which is unfair, because greater merits deserve at least the same benefit.

Make it directly quarterfinals, semifinals and final.


Less important change:

Rotate every year the surface So one year is played on indoor grass, others on indoor hard and others on indoor clay.



The first change is absolutely crucial. Without such a change, the tournament lacks credibility as the classification system of the group phase does not make justice to the players' performances.

 

[tudwell]

Important change:

Eiminate the Group Phase. It allows a player of the group A with only 1 win to classify and a player of the group B with 2 wins to be eliminated. Which is unfair, because greater merits deserve at least the same benefit.

Make it directly quarterfinals, semifinals and final.

But the two players are in different groups. They’re not competing across groups to qualify, they’re competing against the three other men in their own group. What happens in the other group is irrelevant. Yes, that can lead to imbalances, but not really more so than any other tournament. In reaching the 2016 US Open final, Djokovic had a walkover and two mid-match retirements, while Wawrinka battled through six full matches. Yet they got the same number of points. How’s that any more fair than what can happen here?

In any case, I’m sure you won’t be swayed because Nadal sucks here and so everything about it must be bad, but I don’t think you’re really engaging with the logic of the round robin system. If you just plain don’t like round robins, or don’t think they should be used in tennis, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make them “unfair.” And they let us fans watch way more tennis: 15 matches vs. 7 in the case of an 8-player draw.

 

[hoodjem]

Move away from London. It already has Wimbledon and Queen's Club.

One city should not get 4000 (2000 + 500 + 1500) ATP points worth of tournaments. Enough.

 

[tudwell]

And I’ll never ever ever understand the idea of changing surfaces. No other tournament gets that criticism - why this one? For all but two years of its existence, it’s been indoors. It’s like the indoor “major” - and with the shambles that Paris tends to be in recent years it’s really the only “big” indoor tournament left. We’re not moving Wimbledon away from grass or Roland Garros away from clay - why should the world’s biggest indoor tournament change surfaces?

 

[RaulRamirez]

And I’ll never ever ever understand the idea of changing surfaces. No other tournament gets that criticism - why this one? For all but two years of its existence, it’s been indoors. It’s like the indoor “major” - and with the shambles that Paris tends to be in recent years it’s really the only “big” indoor tournament left. We’re not moving Wimbledon away from grass or Roland Garros away from clay - why should the world’s biggest indoor tournament change surfaces?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing (but) indoors is a condition. Can it be kept indoors, but with a different type of surface. I'm not suggesting something gimmicky.

 

[RaulRamirez]

But the two players are in different groups. They’re not competing across groups to qualify, they’re competing against the three other men in their own group. What happens in the other group is irrelevant. Yes, that can lead to imbalances, but not really more so than any other tournament. In reaching the 2016 US Open final, Djokovic had a walkover and two mid-match retirements, while Wawrinka battled through six full matches. Yet they got the same number of points. How’s that any more fair than what can happen here?

In any case, I’m sure you won’t be swayed because Nadal sucks here and so everything about it must be bad, but I don’t think you’re really engaging with the logic of the round robin system. If you just plain don’t like round robins, or don’t think they should be used in tennis, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make them “unfair.” And they let us fans watch way more tennis: 15 matches vs. 7 in the case of an 8-player draw.

15 total matches can also be accomplished with a regular 16-player knockout draw, and in this case, you know that every match counts!

 

[Sport]

But the two players are in different groups. They’re not competing across groups to qualify, they’re competing against the three other men in their own group. What happens in the other group is irrelevant. Yes, that can lead to imbalances, but not really more so than any other tournament. In reaching the 2016 US Open final, Djokovic had a walkover and two mid-match retirements, while Wawrinka battled through six full matches. Yet they got the same number of points. How’s that any more fair than what can happen here?

In any case, I’m sure you won’t be swayed because Nadal sucks here and so everything about it must be bad, but I don’t think you’re really engaging with the logic of the round robin system. If you just plain don’t like round robins, or don’t think they should be used in tennis, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make them “unfair.” And they let us fans watch way more tennis: 15 matches vs. 7 in the case of an 8-player draw.

I undertand your comment, but still a player with only 1 victory does not deserve more the classification than a player with 2 victories, as the player with 1 victory has made less merits.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals reward the player with less merits.

P. S.: Nadal does not "suck" here, he has made 2 finals and has defeated Federer, Djokovic and Murray here, despite having participated only a few times. Nadal was just unlucky to be in the same era than the two best indoor players ever (Federer and Djokovic). Has Federer defeated Nadal at Roland-Garros? Does it mean Federer sucks at Roland-Garros for not defeating Nadal?

 

[mike danny]

15 total matches can also be accomplished with a regular 16-player knockout draw, and in this case, you know that every match counts!

I don't know, I'd rather watch a top 8 player against another top 8 player.

 

[tudwell]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing (but) indoors is a condition. Can it be kept indoors, but with a different type of surface. I'm not suggesting something gimmicky.

Well that’s true. I suppose for me it comes down to tradition here. Indoor surfaces in tennis (in the Open Era at least) have nearly always been carpet or hard court, and usually on the faster side. Since carpet’s been banned by the ATP, then hard court it is - for me at least.

But I do find some of your questions in the OP interesting. Expanding the draw might not be a bad idea, and despite debating with others here about it, I don’t think the round robin format is essential to the tournament. I like it, but I’d still watch and respect the tournament if it were a knockout event (and that would probably make it easier to bring in more players).

And I do think the points are on the high side. 400 points for a semifinal win seems especially high. That’s as many points as you get for winning a Masters final! The event should still be worth more than a Masters but somewhere closer to 1200 or 1300 probably, instead of 1500.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Important change:

Eiminate the Group Phase. It allows a player of the group A with only 1 win to classify and a player of the group B with 2 wins to be eliminated. Which is unfair, because greater merits deserve at least the same benefit.

Make it directly quarterfinals, semifinals and final.


Less important change:

Rotate every year the surface So one year is played on indoor clay, others on indoor hard and others on indoor clay.



The first change is absolutely crucial. Without such a change, the tournament lacks credibility as the classification system of the group phase does not make justice to the players' performances.

I know you didn't mean to, but it's pretty funny that you listed clay twice #Subliminal.

 

[mike danny]

I undertand your comment, but still a player with only 1 victory does not deserve more the classification than a player with 2 victories, as the player with 1 victory has made less merits.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals reward the player with less merits.

P. S.: Nadal does not "suck" here, he has made 2 finals and has defeated Federer, Djokovic and Murray here, despite having participated only a few times. Nadal was just unlucky to be in the same era than the two best indoor players ever (Federer and Djokovic). Has Federer defeated Nadal at Roland-Garros? Does it mean Federer sucks at Roland-Garros for not defeating Nadal?

No player with 1 win has ever taken precedence over a player with 2 wins.

 

[James P]

Points wouldn't count as an extra tournament, but rather a higher tally would replace your 18th best result. I have no idea how ATP Cup's points will work, but basically would hope that would be the same too.

 

[blablavla]

I undertand your comment, but still a player with only 1 victory does not deserve more the classification than a player with 2 victories, as the player with 1 victory has made less merits.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals reward the player with less merits.

P. S.: Nadal does not "suck" here, he has made 2 finals and has defeated Federer, Djokovic and Murray here, despite having participated only a few times. Nadal was just unlucky to be in the same era than the two best indoor players ever (Federer and Djokovic). Has Federer defeated Nadal at Roland-Garros? Does it mean Federer sucks at Roland-Garros for not defeating Nadal?

that's so wrong in so many dimensions.
just like the player who wins more points, doesn't necessarily wins the match.
just like the player who wins more games, doesn't necessarily wins the match.
just like the player who wins more sets, doesn't necessarily wins the tournament.

at the very end of the day, in tennis you need to convert match points into matches won, and championship points into tournaments won.
I'm sorry if this is a surprise for you.

 

[StrongRule]

I undertand your comment, but still a player with only 1 victory does not deserve more the classification than a player with 2 victories, as the player with 1 victory has made less merits.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals reward the player with less merits.

P. S.: Nadal does not "suck" here, he has made 2 finals and has defeated Federer, Djokovic and Murray here, despite having participated only a few times. Nadal was just unlucky to be in the same era than the two best indoor players ever (Federer and Djokovic). Has Federer defeated Nadal at Roland-Garros? Does it mean Federer sucks at Roland-Garros for not defeating Nadal?

Leave alone the fact that Federer plays RG every year (ok, he did until 2017 when he already was 36) while Nadal almost never plays WTF. If the played it every year he would probably won it at least once. But now I hope he never plays it again to be honest.

 

[James P]

Round robin provides better h2h contests. I'm against eliminating it, personally.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

And I’ll never ever ever understand the idea of changing surfaces. No other tournament gets that criticism - why this one? For all but two years of its existence, it’s been indoors. It’s like the indoor “major” - and with the shambles that Paris tends to be in recent years it’s really the only “big” indoor tournament left. We’re not moving Wimbledon away from grass or Roland Garros away from clay - why should the world’s biggest indoor tournament change surfaces?

3 (years of existence) (1974: grass at kooyong)
but your point still stands and i agree with it...

#BringBackCarpet

as regards the RR phase, it's one of the things that make the tournament cool and unique

 

[tudwell]

I undertand your comment, but still a player with only 1 victory does not deserve more the classification than a player with 2 victories, as the player with 1 victory has made less merits.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals reward the player with less merits.

I suppose one solution would be to advance the four players with the best round robin record regardless of group, but then you run into the problem of not comparing like with like. If three players from group A advance, maybe that’s because they had a major weak link in their group they all got wins over that didn’t exist in the other group? They didn’t play the same players so it’s harder to make a clear judgment about how well they performed relative to the conditions they played in (i.e. the other players in the group).

I think the players would find that even more unfair that the current rules, since they could be in a very difficult group with the other guys get better records in a lesser group.

 

[blablavla]

I suppose one solution would be to advance the four players with the best round robin record regardless of group, but then you run into the problem of not comparing like with like. If three players from group A advance, maybe that’s because they had a major weak link in their group they all got wins over that didn’t exist in the other group? They didn’t play the same players so it’s harder to make a clear judgment about how well they performed relative to the conditions they played in (i.e. the other players in the group).

I think the players would find that even more unfair that the current rules, since they could be in a very difficult group with the other guys get better records in a lesser group.

Adding a new rule would solve most of fans discussions.
Federer, Djokovic and Nadal have their SF spots booked. So the rest of the guys fight for 1 remaining slot.

Oh wait, then the fans will discuss how boring tennis is, and that the new generation is pathetic and can't defeat some oldies.

 

[r2473]

1. Move it to center court at Roland Garros

2. All matches BO5

3. Knockout format

4. Increase points so an undefeated champion earns 5,000 points.

5. No serve shot clock

6. Allow injured players to fully recover before making them play a match

7. Rallies must extend to at least 40 shots to be counted

 

[mike danny]

Leave alone the fact that Federer plays RG every year (ok, he did until 2017 when he already was 36) while Nadal almost never plays WTF. If the played it every year he would probably won it at least once. But now I hope he never plays it again to be honest.

There's nothing unfair about it.

Here's the breakdown:

Tsitsi can be 4-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in straights, Rafa can be 4-3 in that case and Zverev can be 4-2 if he beats Medvedev in straights. Obviously Tsits and Med advance since their sets win-loss records are better than Nadal's.

Tsitsi can be 5-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in 3 sets, Rafa can be 4-4 in that case and Zverev can be 4-3 if he beats Medvedev in 3 sets. Obviously Tsits and Med advance since their sets win-loss records are, again, better than Nadal's.

Tsitsi can be 4-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in straights, Rafa can be 4-3 in that case and Zverev can be 4-3 if he beats Medvedev in 3 sets. Tsits has the best sets win-loss record, so he goes through, while Zverev has the H2H over Nadal, so he goes through.

It's all very fair. Blame Nadal for getting destroyed by Zverev, instead of trying to at least win a set.

The rules are fair. You just don't like them and that's your problem.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I suppose one solution would be to advance the four players with the best round robin record regardless of group, but then you run into the problem of not comparing like with like. If three players from group A advance, maybe that’s because they had a major weak link in their group they all got wins over that didn’t exist in the other group? They didn’t play the same players so it’s harder to make a clear judgment about how well they performed relative to the conditions they played in (i.e. the other players in the group).

I think the players would find that even more unfair that the current rules, since they could be in a very difficult group with the other guys get better records in a lesser group.

If they're going to do groups and RR play (I think this is negotiable - I don't care for it.) logically, you can't compare results in Group 1 with results in Group 2.

 

[StrongRule]

There's nothing unfair about it.

Here's the breakdown:

Tsitsi can be 4-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in straights, Rafa can be 4-3 in that case and Zverev can be 4-2 if he beats Medvedev in straights. Obviously Tsits and Med advance since their sets win-loss records are better than Nadal's.

Tsitsi can be 5-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in 3 sets, Rafa can be 4-4 in that case and Zverev can be 4-3 if he beats Medvedev in 3 sets. Obviously Tsits and Med advance since their sets win-loss records are, again, better than Nadal's.

Tsitsi can be 4-2 in sets if he loses to Rafa in straights, Rafa can be 4-3 in that case and Zverev can be 4-3 if he beats Medvedev in 3 sets. Tsits has the best sets win-loss record, so he goes through, while Zverev has the H2H over Nadal, so he goes through.

It's all very fair. Blame Nadal for getting destroyed by Zverev, instead of trying to at least win a set.

The rules are fair. You just don't like them and that's your problem.

I wonder what this answer has to do with my last comment. Anyway, what about the case where Nadal beats Tsitsipas in 3 sets and Medvedev beats Zverev? Then Nadal would be 4-4 in sets while Tsitsipas would 5-2, but somehow Nadal would still take the first place in the group. (which means facing Djokovic in the semifinals)

 

[Sport]

I suppose one solution would be to advance the four players with the best round robin record regardless of group, but then you run into the problem of not comparing like with like. If three players from group A advance, maybe that’s because they had a major weak link in their group they all got wins over that didn’t exist in the other group? They didn’t play the same players so it’s harder to make a clear judgment about how well they performed relative to the conditions they played in (i.e. the other players in the group).

I think the players would find that even more unfair that the current rules, since they could be in a very difficult group with the other guys get better records in a lesser group.

That would represent an imporvement, but would still create problems in case players are tied in number of victories.

In my opinion, the only viable solution is to simply eliminate the group phase and directly play quarterfinals, semifinals and the final.

that's so wrong in so many dimensions.
just like the player who wins more points, doesn't necessarily wins the match.

I am not talking about extra dimensions but about our current four-dimensional space.

Bad analogy. I am not talking about the player who wins more points but the player who wins more matches. Big difference. A player who has won more points has not made more merirts to win a match. The player who wins the last point of the match is the one who deserves to win.

A player with only 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals can reward the player with less merits.

There's nothing unfair about it.


The rules are fair. You just don't like them and that's your problem.

It is indeed extrmelly unfair. With the current format, a player of the group A with only 1 victory cna classify but a player with 2 victories of the group B with 2 victories can fail to classify.

No matter how you look at it, a plyer with 1 victory does not deserve to classify over a player with 2 victories.

If they're going to do groups and RR play (I think this is negotiable - I don't care for it.) logically, you can't compare results in Group 1 with results in Group 2.

I have to (respectfully) disagree. In my opinion, you do need to compare between groups to avoid double standards. You cannot allow a player of the group A with less victories to classify when there is a player of the group B with more victories and will not classify.

 

[mike danny]

I wonder what this answer has to do with my last comment. Anyway, what about the case where Nadal beats Tsitsipas in 3 sets and Medvedev beats Zverev? Then Nadal would be 4-4 in sets while Tsitsipas would 5-2, but somehow Nadal would still take the first place in the group. (which means facing Djokovic in the semifinals)

Because of the H2H. Both would have a 2-1 record, but Nadal would have the H2H advantage over Tsitsipas.

When 2 players are tied, H2H takes precedence.

When 3 players are tied, sets win-loss records take precedence.

 

[mike danny]

That would represent an imporvement, but would still create problems in case players are tied in number of victories.

In my opinion, the only viable solution is to simply eliminate the group phase and directly play quarterfinals, semifinals and the final.

I am not talking about extra dimensions but about our current four-dimensional space.

Bad analogy. I am not talking about the player who wins more points but the player who wins more matches. Big difference. A player who has won more points has not made more merirts to win a match. The player who wins the last point of the match is the one who deserves to win.

A player with only 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories.

Same merits = same benefits.

But the ATP finals can reward the player with less merits.



It is indeed extrmelly unfair, With the current format, a player of the group A with only 1 victory cna classify but a player with 2 victories of the group B with 2 victories can fail to classify.

No matter how you look at it, a plyer with 1 victory does not deserve to classify over a player with 2 victories.


I have to (respectfully) disagree. In my opinion, you do need to compare between groups to avoid double standards. You cannot allow a player of the group A with less victories to classify when there is a player of the group B with more victories and will not classify

You are looking at it the wrong way.

To express myself in Las Vegas fashion:

"What happens in Group A stays in Group A."

 

[Sport]

You are looking at it the wrong way.

To express myself in Las Vegas fashion:

"What happens in Group A stays in Group A."

2 > 1.

The tournament includes both group A and group B. A player with 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories that does not classify.

 

[blablavla]

I wonder what this answer has to do with my last comment. Anyway, what about the case where Nadal beats Tsitsipas in 3 sets and Medvedev beats Zverev? Then Nadal would be 4-4 in sets while Tsitsipas would 5-2, but somehow Nadal would still take the first place in the group. (which means facing Djokovic in the semifinals)

I think tennis has enough knock-out tournaments, so having some RR format can't spoil the competition.

 

[blablavla]

Bad analogy. I am not talking about the player who wins more points but the player who wins more matches. Big difference. A player who has won more points has not made more merirts to win a match. The player who wins the last point of the match is the one who deserves to win.

A player with only 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories.

Same merits = same benefits.

dear @Sport can you enlighten all of us, and name the situation when a player with 2 victories was denied the SF slot and it was awarded instead to a player with 1 victory?

 

[mike danny]

2 > 1.

The tournament includes both group A and group B. A player with 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories that does not classify.

Same thing with USO 2016: a player with 1 walkover and 2 retirements (Djokovic) does not deserve the same amount of points as a guy who played 6 full matches (Wawrinka) when both reach the final. But what happens in Novak's part of the draw, stays in Novak's part of the draw.

Same thing with the WTF. Groups A and B are different groups with different performances. You have to manage them separately because of that. Players are judged based on how they perform only in their respective groups.

It's not like one player in Group B wins 2 matches, while another wins only 1 and the latter qualifies while the former doesn't. Then it would be unfair. No such thing in your scenario.

 

[mike danny]

I think tennis has enough knock-out tournaments, so having some RR format can't spoil the competition.

I already explained this conundrum to him.

 

[tudwell]

2 > 1.

The tournament includes both group A and group B. A player with 1 victory does not deserve to classify if there is a player with 2 victories that does not classify.

But a walkover in a single-elimination tournament leads to the same imbalance. A player can reach a major final winning just five matches. In the other half, before playing the semifinal, both players have also won 5 matches. All three have achieved the same thing but one can’t make the final. Is that not unfair in the same manner?

 

[StrongRule]

If only Zverev wouldn't be such a mug against Tsitsipas then everything would be easier. Nadal and Tsitsipas would simply play a match for the right to play a semifinal against Thiem. (who is getting destroyed by Berrettini LOL)

 

[RaulRamirez]

Because of the H2H. both would have a 2-1 record, but Nadal would have the H2H advantage over Tsitsipas.

When 2 players are tied, H2H takes precedence.

When 3 players are tied, sets win-loss records take precedence.

I agree with your points, Mike. (Here comes the "but" ?). Actually, the TB criteria do make some sense (not sure if/how I'd change it) but it does lead to some scenarios that at least look weird. Tomorrow, I think Rafa can either win the group or be bounced. Now, this type of scenario can even happen in the NFL, but...

This is one reason that I don't really like RR play, and given the choice of the current or a 16-player knockout, I'd choose the latter.

Or, a compromise. Take the Top 12 with byes given to the Top 4. Let the other 8 play each other to get an 8-player knockout draw.

 

[Third Serve]

Best of five finals. If that’s impossible, downgrade the points to 1,250.

 

[mike danny]

dear @Sport can you enlighten all of us, and name the situation when a player with 2 victories was denied the SF slot and it was awarded instead to a player with 1 victory?

He wasn't treating each group separately which is where his biggest mistake lies.

 

[mike danny]

I agree with your points, Mike. (Here comes the "but" ?). Actually, the TB criteria do make some sense (not sure if/how I'd change it) but it does lead to some scenarios that at least look weird. Tomorrow, I think Rafa can either win the group or be bounced. Now, this type of scenario can even happen in the NFL, but...

This is one reason that I don't really like RR play, and given the choice of the current or a 16-player knockout, I'd choose the latter.

Or, a compromise. Take the Top 12 with byes given to the Top 4. Let the other 8 play each other to get an 8-player knockout draw.

That's fair. But, like I said, strange situations can happen even in knock-out tournaments. A player can have 6 walkover to reach a slam final, while another has to play 6 full matches and both gain the same amount of points. It doesn't mean the knock-out system is flawed.

 

[mike danny]

But a walkover in a single-elimination tournament leads to the same imbalance. A player can reach a major final winning just five matches. In the other half, before playing the semifinal, both players have also won 5 matches. All three have achieved the same thing but one can’t make the final. Is that not unfair in the same manner?

And the guy who reached R4, but got a walkover wins the same amount of money as the guy who had to win all 3 matches. That is also unfair.

 

[RaulRamirez]

To answer one of my own questions, I would reduce the # points awarded.

If retaining the present RR system, I'd give 100 for each group win, 300 more to get to the final, and either 400 more for the final (or perhaps 500 if B of 5 final).

 

[StrongRule]

To answer one of my own questions, I would reduce the # points awarded.

If retaining the present RR system, I'd give 100 for each group win, 300 more to get to the final, and either 400 more for the final (or perhaps 500 if B of 5 final).

Exactly. This tournament gives way too many points. Because of that Djokovic got the YE#1 as a gift.

 

[RaulRamirez]

That's fair. But, like I said, strange situations can happen even in knock-out tournaments. A player can have 6 walkover to reach a slam final, while another has to play 6 full matches and both gain the same amount of points. It doesn't mean the knock-out system is flawed.

Walkovers, retirements and withdrawals can also, and have, happened here. Just some stuff to think about...

 

[mike danny]

Exactly. This tournament gives way too many points. Because of that Djokovic got the YE#1 as a gift.

1. The way I see it, you should actually get more rewarded for beating top 8 players than for beating mugs.

2. Nadal has exactly the same opportunity at these "too many points" as Novak.

 

[blablavla]

And the guy who reached R4, but got a walkover wins the same amount of money as the guy who had to win all 3 matches. That is also unfair.

currently, all Slams allow LL (lucky loser) to play the main draw.
It already happened that ATP events were won by LL.
It as well happens that LL plays in the main draw the opponent to who the LL already lost in qualies final, and it is not uncommon when the LL advances.

So, I wonder what will happen on this board, shall a LL say reach a slam semi final, or dear Lord, shall a LL win the slam defeating one of the keyboard warriors favorite player.
any thoughts on this?

P.S.
a lucky loser winning an ATP event is a player with 1 loss winning a knock-out event

 

[tudwell]

And the guy who reached R4, but got a walkover wins the same amount of money as the guy who had to win all 3 matches. That is also unfair.

Hell, first round byes are royally unfair by Sport’s standard. Surprised I’ve never seen him railing against those.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Exactly. This tournament gives way too many points. Because of that Djokovic got the YE#1 as a gift.

I am not advocating for or against any player(s) here. In truth, I am torn between the two - love both guys and respect the heck out of Fed as well. I just want fairness for all players and a great fan experience - I and think this tourney is too much of a points bonanza for being, essentially, another indoor fast HC "Masters".