Raonic beat Thiem 7-6(5) 6-3 to reach the SF as group runner-up. No BPs and indeed just 13 return points won in the match for Thiem.

I wondered if it was me or does anyone else find the Tour Finals usually slightly a disappointment. I was trying to work out why and three things struck me:

Firstly the Round Robin nature - whilst my gut feels this should work, I am not sure it does; Goffin coming in for Monfils was a prime example today, if I had paid good money for todays play I would have been v upset. And Andy with two wins being left not sure of making the semis, feels wrong, whatever the maths and the arguments against. My feeling is that Round Robins leave second chances and dead matches arise and that just doesnt sit well.

Secondly, if the tour Finals are really a big deal, five sets would help make the matches be more likely to be classics. Who really remembers previous individual matches, no one I would guess because the event doesnt produce classics. Five sets would help. Clearly that cant work in a round robin format and may not work if it was an 8 player straight knockout, which presumably in turn wouldnt work well for TV purposes and creating enough matches to cover a weeks worth of play. Maybe a five set final at least is needed?

Thirdly, and on the classics front, the event tends to have few three set matches, many two set matches only and not many upsets typically - so little excitement overall.

I am sure lots will disagree with me but I always feel underwhelmed during the Tour Finals despite looking forward to them as the year progresses. I dont have answers just problems so probably deserve taking apart but thought I would share my feelings!

I agree I am totally disinterested in the matches other than Andy's and then really only in the outcome of those. I may watch the final but really now my mindset is looking forward to the AO as the next meaningful event. 2016 for me was done in Paris, it consists of the slams which to me have value as independent value and a league in the ATP tour.

Playoffs when there is no promotion or relegation leave me cold, they mean nothing, a league is just padding it out, I sense the players feel the same. Not really the defining piece of the a years work it is set up to be. Bah Humbug!

Coup Droit wrote:

---

I agree, too, JonH.

The only thing in favour of the Masters is that at least it is shown in the afternoon on normal, bog-standard TV. And that I like.

If you don't have any BBC Sport/Euorsport/Sky packages etc, the average Jo(e) gets so little tennis on TV, than any is welcome. And a good match is a good match.

But beyond that I don't care about the results, as such. To me, it's like they've all won already i.e. they;ve all finished top 10, which is pretty amazing. Anything else is just details, and re-hashing the mix.

That said, thanks to a long list of people dropping out, we've suddenly been offered tickets for Saturday evening. Never been so obviously said yes Will be curious to see what it's like live....

---

 Hi CD - that sounds like a good opportunity; given he is playing this evening my guess is that if Nishikori gets through he will play Saturday evening session as well (rather than back to back in the afternoon) so I reckon you will get Kei v Djokovic most likely, assuming Andy gets at least a set off Stan. If Andy does get through, presumably Jamie will be put into the other session as well, to keep the Brit interest across the day, so you may find yourself with Jamie doubles and Nole v Kei singles - just guessing of course!

My wife and I went a couple of times - we saw Davydenko beat Federer in a semi one year, big upset, Davydenko never did much again after that (whatever really happened to him??) and we also saw Andy play Nadal in a semi one year which was a 3 hour epic which Nadal won, possibly the best match i can remember at the O2.  

I was thinking back to the history of the year end events and the Masters (when it was in New York, then toured around various venues, through German locations to now) and even though it changed timing (was at one stage in January or march i believe) and format (12 player knockout , 16 player knockout both used) it has always never quite lived up to the hype. The shortlived Grand Slam Cup was similar. The only one that got my juices flowing back in the day was the WCT Finals in Dallas. That really excited me for a long while and I think it was 3 things - 8 players single elimination made each match really count; it seemed to have meaning and substance as an event to win as opposed to players jostling for ranking position. And it was 5 sets throughout, so matches could be classics and many of the Rosewall/Laver/Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl/Becker/Edberg matches where. Of course it fizzled out as the WCT role in the game diminished and ATP took over but that was an event that really caught my attention and for me would be the ideal model for a decent year end decider event.

 

Enjoy Saturday evening whoever you see!   

 

Herbert and Mahut have just taken the first set on a tie-break

MTB in the doubles

Jan wrote:

---

Kontinen and Peers take it 10-4

---

 Does that give Jamie and Soares year end #1 team ranking??