Round robin format

[Brinyi]

Polls, woohoo.

[leelee]

They blow.

This format doesn't work for tennis. There's no special feeling to the event when all the Top 8 players are usually playing each other about a handful of times during the year, anyway. This tournament does nothing to define who the best player in the world is, as it's at best, the 5th most important of the tourney of the year.

Of course, the players love it because if you qualify, it's a guaranteed huge bundle of cash. For players who don't need it. And thus, this will never change.

INDOOR GRAND SLAM-LIKE EVENT, PLZ.

[R. Black]

It makes no sense for tennis because the 2 players qualifying aren't necessary the best 2 players of the group.

If you have 3-0 / 1-2 / 1-2 / 1-2, why should player X qualifies and not player Y? Because player X won one more set? Bullshit. All 3 players equally suck. Same thing with 2-1 / 2-1 / 2-1 / 0-3.

Meaningless matches suck as well.

The only positive aspect of the RR format is to see top players playing each other several times, but if you have one shitty player in a group, it ruins half of the matches of that group (Alberto Beresategui comes in mind).

To me what would be satisfying is seeing like Leena says a INDOOR GS-LIKE EVENT, with 32 players or even 64

With only 8 players, I feel it's like a meaningless exhibition. It is sort of anyway.

AND FIX A CITY AND THEN DON'T MOVE THE TOURNAMENT. Slams are prestigious because they have history. YEC has none because the event changes location.

[leelee]

64-preferrably 96 player indoor event. Different venues for both sexes, except for Moscow that could probably handle both, but they'd get poor attendance. Like that matters, though.

[Wagasi]

But what indoor venue can handle a 64 player draw?

RR is weird. Even in the football and cricket world cups, you always end up with these 3 way ties for second place which can only be broken with arbitrarily bizarre rules which shouldn't be part of the sport but no one ever changes the format

[GoDom]

Here's why it is a good thing:

1. First of all, 8 players are better than 16, because of less suckage. Then, 8 players are WAY better than 32 or 64 or even more at an indoor "Grand Slam" (which will never ever exist, thankfully). For the same reason.
2. Since it is a special event (season-ending, only best players of the season qualify, 5th biggest), it should have a special format too. The old 16-player format had a bit of it by having a best-of-5 final. After that was gone it was just another BORING event. Because most regular women's tournaments ARE boring. Same would be the case for a 32+ players event. Boring. Same ol' same ol'.
3. So we need 8 players, and a different format. That leaves Double Elimination (would love to see that one! haha) and Round Robin.

While I agree that having quite a lot of math and this and that is a bit weird - that's just not the point.
For an ELITE tournament 8 players is the maximum and that eliminates the single elimination system. It's that simple.

Round Robin is used in many many sports and it works well. Usually only the people who don't get it are against it (like goldenlox for example) so I'm a bit surprised to see so much opposition here.

[R. Black]

Is a player who win 6-3 better than a player who wins 6-4? Both case, it's only a break of difference.

RR does make more sense for sports like soccer. Because the goal is simple for every match: to win as many points as possible until the game ends. So it makes sense to say a team who goaled more points was better.

In tennis, the point is to win the match, without any limit of time. When you give importance to sets and games, that's another sport.

[:rolleyes:]

It would be alright if the WTA got the scheduling right. Second matches are winners vs winners and losers vs losers. Nadia should have played Justine on day2, not Hingis. Also, Justine had an advantage against Nadia because she was rested.

Also in this format, Justine chooses who she wants to send to the semifinals, Hingis or Mauresmo

[leelee]

Round Robin is just as boring, if not more. You can lose a match, and it doesn't matter. There's no excitement of watching upsets, or rising players. And most people don't care about half of this field, anyway. RR just doesn't work for tennis, especially when it's in small groups like 4 where tiebreakers will decide things most of the time.

I know an indoor GS will never happen, that's just wishful thinking on my part.

I'm against having a special ELITE entry tournament with large ranking point bonuses in the first place.

I don't know what else could be done to make this a special event. It's nearly impossible to do with tennis.

[DBBN]

leelee said:

I don't know what else could be done to make this a special event. It's nearly impossible to do with tennis.

Fourth place in each group: GUILLOTINED

[R. Black]

leelee said:

Round Robin is just as boring, if not more. You can lose a match, and it doesn't matter. There's no excitement of watching upsets, or rising players. And most people don't care about half of this field, anyway. RR just doesn't work for tennis, especially when it's in small groups like 4 where tiebreakers will decide things most of the time.

Yes. After Hingis won the first set against Mauresmo, I stopped caring. Because it just didn't matter THAT much.

Why do we need the YEC to be special? We don't need an ELITE tournament. There is no ELITE in WTA anymore, just a bunch of inconsistant players.

[Wagasi]

Didn't the original Slims Champs used to be 8 player double elimination?

I wonder what that was like

[DBBN]

Double elimination sounds really good, actually. No dead rubbers, Dementieva home by Thursday.

[Grarliner]

I like the RR.

[GoDom]

bagelresurrection said:

Yes. After Hingis won the first set against Mauresmo, I stopped caring. Because it just didn't matter THAT much.

It didn't matter? Can you elaborate on that please?

[R. Black]

godominique said:

bagelresurrection said:

Yes. After Hingis won the first set against Mauresmo, I stopped caring. Because it just didn't matter THAT much.

It didn't matter? Can you elaborate on that please?

I won't elaborate until you start reading my sentences properly

[R. Black]

Reason 20934832984230984203948 why RR sucks: the SAME match again tomorrow. We already saw it, we don't need it again.

[GoDom]

bagelresurrection said:

godominique said:

It didn't matter? Can you elaborate on that please?

I won't elaborate until you start reading my sentences properly

You mean the "THAAAT"?

Hingis beat Mauresmo, she's in the semis, Amelie is out.
Mauresmo beats Hingis, Hingis is now out, Amelie is in the finals.

Agreed though, it didn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Universe etc.

[Grarliner]

bagelresurrection said:

Reason 20934832984230984203948 why RR sucks: the SAME match again tomorrow. We already saw it, we don't need it again.

That's actually reason #1 why RR's are good.

[leelee]

hurley said:

Double elimination sounds really good, actually. No dead rubbers, Dementieva home by Thursday.

I'd definitely prefer double elimination over RR, and it would work well with the parity of women's tennis. Of course, it will probably never happen because players would bitch about playing too many matches, the losers not playing enough, etc... and people don't get the cash.

The problem comes if there's a Federer-like player that just dominates a group. It turns out being a big waste of time, because it would take a miracle for someone to beat him TWICE.

[R. Black]

Double elimination wouldn't work. 16 players is out of question... Maybe 8, but it would produce a weird schedule.