WTF alterations?

[BGod]

I will be attending a WTF sooner rather than later but only because it'll be a side-trip. My beef however is with the entirety of the format.

It's a Masters tournament with only the Top 8 players, which is nice to an extent but often carries limited tension until the Final, which isn't even a Bo5 as it use to be.

First, the surface use to be Carpet. Super fast and separate from the Slams. Now, just plain hard. Yes I know it's indoors but spare me.

The Round Robin format is very hit or miss, often producing only 1 quality match for each group that matters. For example, in the 2015 edition there was only one 3 set match that mattered in the round robin with Federer against Nishikori. The issue is quite simple, a player that is 0-2 and has no chance of qualifying playing a player at 2-0 that has already qualified is not going to be worth anything. Really it's just silly. Money will have them step out there but it's not going to be a battle.

Third issue is that aside from the RR as covered above, the tournament doesn't separate itself from the rest of the tour as it should. Remember the single-only court layout?


My Alterations:

Bring in Series. Scrap the RR and have it an old fashioned Quarterfinal set-up with Best of 3 match format. I know fatigue and timing would get brought up but one fix is having a super tiebreak as a 3rd set (first to 10 points) and the matches being several hours apart on same day. In the event of a 1-1 tie, the time on court wouldn't exceed 5 hours, typical for a 5 set Slam match BUT that's if those 5 setters had huge break periods in-between. Then the 3rd match if needed plays as normal. You could also try super sets that go to 10 games with tiebreak, which could result in a 3 set series bringing player on court 3 times in one day. That would truly be a fan event for a day. This would only be done for Quarters and Semifinals and Final would be Bo5 matches.

 

[timnz]

I will be attending a WTF sooner rather than later but only because it'll be a side-trip. My beef however is with the entirety of the format.

It's a Masters tournament with only the Top 8 players, which is nice to an extent but often carries limited tension until the Final, which isn't even a Bo5 as it use to be.

First, the surface use to be Carpet. Super fast and separate from the Slams. Now, just plain hard. Yes I know it's indoors but spare me.

The Round Robin format is very hit or miss, often producing only 1 quality match for each group that matters. For example, in the 2015 edition there was only one 3 set match that mattered in the round robin with Federer against Nishikori. The issue is quite simple, a player that is 0-2 and has no chance of qualifying playing a player at 2-0 that has already qualified is not going to be worth anything. Really it's just silly. Money will have them step out there but it's not going to be a battle.

Third issue is that aside from the RR as covered above, the tournament doesn't separate itself from the rest of the tour as it should. Remember the single-only court layout?


My Alterations:

Bring in Series. Scrap the RR and have it an old fashioned Quarterfinal set-up with Best of 3 match format. I know fatigue and timing would get brought up but one fix is having a super tiebreak as a 3rd set (first to 10 points) and the matches being several hours apart on same day. In the event of a 1-1 tie, the time on court wouldn't exceed 5 hours, typical for a 5 set Slam match BUT that's if those 5 setters had huge break periods in-between. Then the 3rd match if needed plays as normal. You could also try super sets that go to 10 games with tiebreak, which could result in a 3 set series bringing player on court 3 times in one day. That would truly be a fan event for a day. This would only be done for Quarters and Semifinals and Final would be Bo5 matches.

Really I don't understand why people have a problem with round robin. So many other sports do this and no one questions it. The WTF removed the round robin from 1982-1985 but after that they brought it back in. So there must have been a reason for the reintroduction. The other thing to know is that in the entire history (nearly 50 years!) of the championships no one has won the title whilst losing more than 1 round robin match. And even if they by some chance had won it with 2 round robin losses, they would get docked points. Unbeaten title winner 1500 points, title winner 1 round robin loss 1300 points, title winner 2 round robin losses 1100 points. The one thing they have to do is bring back best of five for the final. They lumped it in with the masters 1000 events in removing best of five, and it was crazy to do so, as there are no events after it. (except Davis cup)

 

[BGod]

Really I don't understand why people have a problem with round robin. So many other sports do this and no one questions it. The WTF removed the round robin from 1982-1985 but after that they brought it back in. So there must have been a reason for the reintroduction. The other thing to know is that in the entire history (nearly 50 years!) of the championships no one has won the title whilst losing more than 1 round robin match. And even if they by some chance had won it with 2 round robin losses, they would get docked points. Unbeaten title winner 1500 points, title winner 1 round robin loss 1300 points, title winner 2 round robin losses 1100 points. The one thing they have to do is bring back best of five for the final. They lumped it in with the masters 1000 events in removing best of five, and it was crazy to do so, as there are no events after it. (except Davis cup)

My problem with the RR is that eliminated players still show up to collect a paycheck. Would make more sense to just have the eliminate player be done and remaining tiebreak procedure in place. Like in the following scenario:

Player A is 2-0
Player B is 1-1 having lost to A beating C
Player C is 1-1 having lost B beating D
Player D is 0-2 having lost to

Instead of having C facing A and B facing D, just have B & C play eachother again. I know that might seem unfair to B, but A is already through at this point and D is done. But this creates issues with players having luxury of less games. Or, you know, just have 1 group with 7 matches planned for every player BUT as some players are eliminated that schedule goes down. This would be only 3 spots, #1 finisher gets BYE to Final. I have to assume some players would get eliminated after only 5 matches.

 

[jackmd57]

if I remember correctly, they award some rank points per match in RR, so players can go out fighting for some points also.

I'm OK with RR coz they are top 8 players there, It is good to see many matches among them playing each other. The knock out format would have only 4 QF matches compare with RR that have 12 matches to set the semifinal.

I completely agree with Bo5 final for the 1500 point. Make it worth more than other masters

 

[jackmd57]

My problem with the RR is that eliminated players still show up to collect a paycheck. Would make more sense to just have the eliminate player be done and remaining tiebreak procedure in place. Like in the following scenario:

Player A is 2-0
Player B is 1-1 having lost to A beating C
Player C is 1-1 having lost B beating D
Player D is 0-2 having lost to

Instead of having C facing A and B facing D, just have B & C play eachother again. I know that might seem unfair to B, but A is already through at this point and D is done. But this creates issues with players having luxury of less games. Or, you know, just have 1 group with 7 matches planned for every player BUT as some players are eliminated that schedule goes down. This would be only 3 spots, #1 finisher gets BYE to Final. I have to assume some players would get eliminated after only 5 matches.

I understand the idea but there will be a problem with the schedule of play, for example

player D
1st match loss to nadal, -> 0-1
2nd match loss to federer, -> 0-2
then out of competition, right?
but! if his 2nd match is scheduled to play with other player and he win so he will be 1-1 and still have some chance to continue.

 

[Kalin]

Setting up tournaments to be different from the norm is always tricky. Just look at the World Cup of soccer; they tinker with the finals' format all the time and there are always issues- for every problem you fix, immediately another pops up.

The WTF will always have a philosophical dilemma, IMO: is it a 'real' Masters' tournament, pitting the world's very best players in one final battle to determine the best of the best or is it a touchy-feely silly-season showcase without much lasting impact on legacies or memories. It used to be much more of the first but one wonders if it isn't slowly moving towards the second.

A Best-of-5 final sounds like a good place to start. Then take it from there

 

[Chadillac]

My problem with the RR is that eliminated players still show up to collect a paycheck.

It makes scheduling much easier. You get to see the match up you wanted as a fan.

Players dont go exo mode at the wtf, its a real match.

 

[spirit95]

They are very good at scheduling such that no match is ever totally pointless in terms of qualifying. Also at the end of the day each RR match is worth 200 points which is almost as much as winning an entire ATP tournament.