Week 40 - Challenger ($100,000) - Sacramento CA, USA - Hard

steven · Tennis legend

RE: Week 40 - Challenger ($100,000) - Sacramento CA, USA - Hard

RJA · Hall of fame

Whether he knew it was coming or not Jamie has got in as a LL and will face Denis Gremelmayr (GER) WR 163

steven · Tennis legend

I'll never call Gonzo a muppet again! (ok, not unless I'm ever forced to pick him in BOTB again!) - it looks like it was the former world no. 5's withdrawal that created Jamie's LL place.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

obviously we don't know what was involved with JB here but i think in general they do need to assess the way LL's work. I don't think a player should be able to go into a match like this knowing that they are through to the MD regardless (i guess unless there are 4+ LL spots not much you can do there). When I suggested elsewhere DC should adopt a mini league format the idea was shot down and one of the reaosns being you could have ties being decided with teams having best players pulling out if they can't qualfy etc.

I also don't see why seeds should be given preference over non seeds either, seeds have already got their advantage by not playing another seed till the qualifying round anyway.

I believe they should wait till alll 4 matches are finished then randomly decide the order for LL spots (so players can make a decision to stay on site or not etc).

And i haven't even got onto the possibility of match fixing being involved in these type of circumstances.

on to the actual event i expect Ward to be able to see oof Sock, as for JB i think it will be too tough, if that was a genuine result vs Strode then it doesn't bode well, but if he was deliberately tanking to that extent then he probably deserves to lose.

freerider · Futures level

jamie doesn't seem like the type of guy to tank a match (don't forget there are extra points available for qualifying), but perhaps if you go into a match knowing that you are going to make the main draw either way it may alter your mindset subliminally.

RJA · Hall of fame

I suspect that was a genuine result from Jamie. He does not strike my as the kind of guy who ever gives less than 100% on court.

indiana · Tennis legend

Count Zero wrote:
obviously we don't know what was involved with JB here but i think in general they do need to assess the way LL's work. I don't think a player should be able to go into a match like this knowing that they are through to the MD regardless (i guess unless there are 4+ LL spots not much you can do there). When I suggested elsewhere DC should adopt a mini league format the idea was shot down and one of the reaosns being you could have ties being decided with teams having best players pulling out if they can't qualfy etc.

I also don't see why seeds should be given preference over non seeds either, seeds have already got their advantage by not playing another seed till the qualifying round anyway.

I believe they should wait till alll 4 matches are finished then randomly decide the order for LL spots (so players can make a decision to stay on site or not etc).

And i haven't even got onto the possibility of match fixing being involved in these type of circumstances.

on to the actual event i expect Ward to be able to see oof Sock, as for JB i think it will be too tough, if that was a genuine result vs Strode then it doesn't bode well, but if he was deliberately tanking to that extent then he probably deserves to lose.

Having been one who shot down your DC mini league thoughts smile I'm with you on this one.

I think it really should be LUCKY Loser with a chance for any of the 4 FQR losers.

PS : not implying anything re Jamie, but you know some of these dirty rotten foreigners... wink

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 08:02:37 PM

steven · Tennis legend

Yes. The weird thing is, in many other sports, round robins don't cause too many problems, but they seemed to fail when they were tried in tennis because of this 'if you lose, you're out' and hence, if you're already through or already out, you don't care - even if extra points and prize money ought to be an incentive to win, not to mention a bit of integrity.

Without wanting to judge this particular instance, the same thing often seems to apply when lucky loser places come up and it is obvious who would get one if they lost.

The ITF have tried to get around this problem with a partially random draw for LL places at slams and in Futures, but this still doesn't apply at ATP-run events, i.e. main tour & Challengers.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

i guess one of the differences is between team sports and individual sports. in a team sport you are often paid a set fee per week, but with bonuses, if we take football as a pretty well known sport, players often get bonuses for goals, assists, clean sheets, number of appearances per season etc, plus players are playing for a chance to demonstrate they deserve to be on the team at all, or perhaps using it as a shop window to get a transfer to a bigger team, therefore even in matches where the result may only effect 1 team both will still have reasons to compete.

as for points i think the amount you get isn't enough of an incentive, 5 points is a nice little bonus (or even 12 at ATPS), but it's not enough to make a difference, as the guys in line for the LL's have the higher number of points anyway so those points will have very little effect on ranking.

edit: i think one of the issues with tennis is thats it is so intenese, you cant take it easy at get a win (most of the time) so the players have to be prepaered to put their body on the line each time.

-- Edited by Count Zero on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 10:21:49 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

I think the round robin in ATP tornaments actually failed because folk didn't like it coming down to sets and games difference ( even points theoretically I imagine ) and once the organisers royally screwed up in one tournament it was a goner

In practice they had groups of 3, and the loser in the first match played the second of the three matches. So the third match either involved two players with a 1 - 0 record, so clearly the winner went through, or one on 1 - 0 and the other on 0 -1 so there was at least a chance of taking it to sets difference etc, though I guess if the 0 - 1 chap had done his maths there might come a point he knew the game was up for him but he could in theory muck up the other 1 - 1 chap.

But, as I say, I do think it was more they just didn't like the often quite likely three players on 1 - 1 and decided on differeces scenario. I never was for it because of that. To me tennis, particularly individually, is about winning and losing with a wonderful scoring system.

The Davis Cup, even with again groups of 3 was potentially more of a problem, because with 5 matches in a tie, a more emphatic difference may have already been built up and still after each match in the final tie the position could be reconsidered. And if also last place was important there could particularly be consequences if say the one that was going to be first eased off a bit.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 4th of October 2011 10:33:28 AM

Count Zero · Tennis legend

i think groups of 3 are too small, as you say all too often you end up with the same situations, in say champions league groups the groups are 4 teams strong with 6 matches played in total and 2 going through and the 3rd place team getting a consolation prize of Europa League. the football system is far form perfect, you get occasions were you get a suspicion 2 teams play for a draw as that is mutually beneficial for both sides, but i think that circumstance crops up only rarely.

i don't want to see RR's back in tennis tho.

seagull · Hall of fame

If Wardy wins later it will be Roman Borvanov in R2

seagull · Hall of fame

Didn't realise James had started...he is 5-2 down

seagull · Hall of fame

Wardy is 0/4 on BP's while Sock is 1/1

seagull · Hall of fame

First set gone 6-3 hopefully just a bit rusty