I do not think the problem is reducing from 18 to 16 teams. The problem is having four team groups would mean adding in an extra round of ties and they definitely do not want to do that as that would mean the finalists have to play six ties which is quite a lot.

wolf wrote:

---

I do not think the problem is reducing from 18 to 16 teams. The problem is having four team groups would mean adding in an extra round of ties and they definitely do not want to do that as that would mean the finalists have to play six ties which is quite a lot.

---

 yeah, I thought that after posting. But still a messy draw really. 

I guess you could go 6 group of 3, 6 proceed into 2 groups of 3 in the semis; and then a final for the top teams in the semis groups. Exactly same number of matches, both per winning team (5), and in total (25 matches in total as per now) and less mathematics and messing around with RU spots etc. 

9vicman wrote:

---

Round Robin groups in any competition always have the possibility of qualification being determined by sets, but agree having groups of three with two runners-up progressing is quite messy. Davis Cup tried that in the first two years of the new Finals format, but has since switched to four groups of four. But then of course you have an issue of dead ties.

Am assuming the ATP/WTA want to maximise the number of competing nations so might be loathe to reduce from 18 to 16 anyway.

---

 Yes, it sometimes works well and can be very interesting in the limited team and big end of season singles events. I don't really mind these in general though the precise format can be questionable.

But such is the potential for awkward situations, the ATP were well warned by some that their attempt to introduce it for week to week tour events a few years ago was doomed. As at least they quickly realised once they started.

9vicman wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

9vicman wrote:

---

Round Robin groups in any competition always have the possibility of qualification being determined by sets, but agree having groups of three with two runners-up progressing is quite messy. Davis Cup tried that in the first two years of the new Finals format, but has since switched to four groups of four. But then of course you have an issue of dead ties.

Am assuming the ATP/WTA want to maximise the number of competing nations so might be loathe to reduce from 18 to 16 anyway.

---

 Yes, it sometimes works well and can be very interesting in the limited team and big end of season singles events. I don't really mind these in general though the precise format can be questionable.

But such is the potential for awkward situations, the ATP were well warned by some that their attempt to introduce it for week to week tour events a few years ago was doomed. As at least they quickly realised once they started.

---

 Oh yes, the attempt by the ATP to have round robin groups of three for regular tour events in 2007 was a disaster. I remember an event in Las Vegas where the ATP Chairman decided by phone which player had won the group which was then overturned. And the experiment was dropped. 

---

 It was farcical wasnt it! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Tennis_Channel_Open_%E2%80%93_Singles

the main thing people dont like is players losing in early matches going onto win the event. Credibility goes. And when there is confusion over the rules for how groups are decided, it is a joke. Glad it never survived!