ATP Tour Finals - Andy v Fernando Verdasco

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: ATP Tour Finals - Andy v Fernando Verdasco

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:

Anyone watching the live pictures could see this wasn't a fix.
But Petchey bottled the post match interview by not telling the crowd Andy was out and asking Delpo what he thought about putting out the home man.

Out of interest, had TV / web broadcasts made clear what the position was, at least in the final set when Andy was out if Delpo won by 6 - 3 or better ?

It made for more rivetting siimple LS watching, I would hope that viewers knew the position and if not why not ?

Seems Andy who apparently had been watching at home ( according to Ceefax ) was unclear at the end. From his twitter :

"Anyone know what's going on?? I think I'm audi but the rules aren't worded too well "

-- Edited by indiana on Friday 27th of November 2009 02:04:28 AM

The Hoose · Satellite level

I deliberately didn't post last night as I too would have screamed "fix", out of pure frustration, even though I knew from the intensity of the tie-break and final set that this was not a fix.

I do think the format's a bit silly. Murray beats Del Potro and Verdasco and doesn't progress, while someone in the other group can lose twice and make the semis. Part of the beauty of tennis is its winner-takes-all dynamic and I don't think that sets difference/games difference/other people's matches should have an influence on a player's progress. Last night we were close to a situation where somebody's decision to serve first or second in an earlier match could have made the difference.

I'd prefer a straight knockout: WR1 v WR8; WR2 v WR 7 etc. The players would have three games max and could put all their effort into each one, without suffering the end of season tiredness too much. The trouble is, this would result in 7 matches in total, instead of a money-spinning 15...

Andy's unlucky to be out given his results but, as FD said, this could have a positive effect on him, motivating him even more for the Australian Open.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Indiana the viewing public were aware of the required number of games. Apparently a press release was issued by the ATP during that third set that Andy needed Fed to get 3 games to progress which makes it all very strange that there was a such a long delay at the end of the match to confirm this position ( slightly embarrassing for the ATP). Petch who was commentating was giving the impression that Fed was bound to get to three games but with Delpo serving first it only needed one break of serve to get that scoreline.

indiana · Tennis legend

Hoose, I can just about except RR like this in the ATP tour finals, but events like yesterday can be so frustrating.

But you do give good reasons why practically only the ATP in the tennis world ever thought RR was a starter for regular tour events. Away from the intense glare of the media on all matches, quite apart from the honest anomalies RR can provide, it would always leave too many questions being asked with or without foundation.

indiana · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:

Indiana the viewing public were aware of the required number of games. Apparently a press release was issued by the ATP during that third set that Andy needed Fed to get 3 games to progress which makes it all very strange that there was a such a long delay at the end of the match to confirm this position ( slightly embarrassing for the ATP). Petch who was commentating was giving the impression that Fed was bound to get to three games but with Delpo serving first it only needed one break of serve to get that scoreline.

Phil, I assume that that's your slight slip-up and not the ATP's ( or no wonder if there was confusion ). Andy of course needed Fed to get 4 games

wolf · Tennis legend

Wow, this Andy v Verdasco match must have been good, nine pages.

At the end of the day it's Andy's fault for not progressing, going to sleep at the end of the first set and the whole of the second set against Del Potro is what killed him.

I'm not going to claim to have watched the match or anything, but for the people claiming a fix get a grip, what are we MTF?

Tennis36 · Masters Series Champion

wolf wrote:

Wow, this Andy v Verdasco match must have been good, nine pages.

At the end of the day it's Andy's fault for not progressing, going to sleep at the end of the first set and the whole of the second set against Del Potro is what killed him.

I'm not going to claim to have watched the match or anything, but for the people claiming a fix get a grip, what are we MTF?

I think when people are saying fix it is out of proportion, the 'fix' from my point is purely that service game on fed's part when he knew he was through, it was like he didn't care, portro didn't hit a winner, fed gave him a basic error, a DF and a missed smash

-- Edited by Tennis36 on Friday 27th of November 2009 01:38:22 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

Yep Indiana that's my slip up Delpo needed Fed to get a maximum of 3 games. This is all getting a bit too much for the brain !!

Ratty · County player

Feel sorry for the poor sods who have paid to watch Soderling v Davydenko tonight. Soderling is through, win or lose. Davydenko is through if he wins.

GUESS WHO'S GOING TO WIN, LOL!!!

MiloTheCat · Lower Club Player

I think a guy like Soderling would fancy picking up another 200 ranking points - would help his chances of getting into and lingering a while in the top 8 - which is a big help in the slams/masters

oh, and the money!

Happycynic · Pro player

And all this is reminds us why RR just doesn't work in tennis...

Ratty · County player

And of course it gets better. Soderling needed to win a set to top the group and avoid Federer in the semi .... and whaddya know, he did!!!

RR doesn't really work in any sport. There have been any number of crappy football outcomes ... Argentina needing to beat Peru by 6 goals in the 1978 World Cup, the Germany 1 Austria 0 shocker from the 1982 World Cup, and of course Lyon losing to Fiorentina last week.

Sport generally needs all of the contestants going all out to win every match. Start mucking around with that simple formula, and disappointment is likely to follow.

MiloTheCat · Lower Club Player

I was interested to read in the Times today that previously in a 3 way tie in matches/sets - they decided the winner on games and then decided the runner up by the head-to-head result of the 2nd and 3rd.

That explains why some people thought that a 2-0 for Del Potro over Federer would have meant that Andy was out i.e. Del Potro would have been group winner and Federer runner up on the basis of h2h with Murray - except that they wouldnt have been tied on sets - so Murray would have been through.

Nice to conclude that this forum was a faster source of information than the BBC and the ATP "blazers".

-- Edited by MiloTheCat on Saturday 28th of November 2009 10:00:47 AM

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

The ATP apparently intends to "learn lessons" from this year's shambolic round robin stage. Woe betide its "blazers" (nice one, Milo

, though it's an epithet that's arguably even better, er, suited to the incompetent clowns in charge of the LTA! wink

), though, if they turn to Gareth Southgate for a few tips... hmm