http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/newsandscores/news/news5.asp

Just found this on the atp website. Now personally i'm not a big fan of this round robin idea, and i really can't believe that they're going to do it at Queen's!!!! What does everyone else reckon???

It makes sense for tournament organisers because it ensures big names play at least three times. The downside is that it encourages a regime in which the established players share even more of the cake at the expense of the up and coming. The choice of Queens may actually prove this system's undoing: if a tournament is interrupted by rain, it is going to be logistically much harder to catch up.

Round robin tournaments like the WCT Shanghai event are fun but in all honesty, is it the group matches we remember? Or the knock out final and semi finals? I'm unconvinced we need this system which I think potentially discriminates against new young players and protects the elite more than is healthy.

I can see why they're doing it, but I find that half the fun of the earlier rounds is seeing the upsets - the big names who go out in the first round. It means that younger players, who are perhaps less consistent, will not have as much of a chance to make later rounds. Plus, i may be wrong, but does this not mean that players will actually have to play more matches??? Surely that won't help the problems of injuries? The problem is I guess that the players on the players council (like Nadal) are all experience players and know that this could help their chances (especially Nadal at the moment i guess!!!!!).

why is it called round robin?

I'm going to shamelessly bump this because i'd like to know what people think. There was actually a good discussion on the BBC about it (sans trolls) but i don't htink many people from here posted on it. I'd really like to know what people think of these changes?

(And could someone answer Oblivion's question 'cos i'd like to know too :rolleyes: )

Sorry but I really don't know anything :shrug:

I hate this! On so many levels, I can't believe they're going through with it :angry:

First of all, it takes the meaning out of a lot of the matches, fans are hardly going to be on the edge of their seats during a match which is essentially pointless, since each player will have another shot at making the knock-out stage...

It's basically there to ensure that the top players all reach the latter stages at every tournament, but do people really want to see the same faces in the quarters of each event? Fed hardly ever loses once, now he needs to lose twice if he's to fail to make the quarters, like that'll happen :rolleyes: There's also the whole issue of match fixing and not trying in matches once you've qualified, I really don't like this one bit :angry:

I agree with all of this. The RR system gives a player the option to just tank and conserve energy if they've already qualified, which is never nice to see as a spectator.

Also, this doesn't necessarily help stop the growing number of injuries, if a player needs to lose twice instead of once to go out of the tournament :shrug:

From Wikipedia:

As to whether it's a good idea for tennis --- certainly not, in my opinion! I think fans should complain.

The motivation might be that currently the, say, top 3-20 players are all roughly around the same strength, with none of them really consistently challenge for tournaments in the later stages. The RR format could change this. However, I think it's part of tennis that a loss will kick a player out of the tournament. Period. In a RR stage, Fed will *never* lose. He already makes almost all the finals, so why make it even easier? :shrug:

i don't understand the need to fiddle with the singles games. what they should be addressing is the long season as it pertains to scheduling and injuries. i do understand why the atp has been tweaking the doubles. but leave singles alone. this fuddy-duddy don't like change :angry:

This round robin is ridiculous :rolleyes:

So in a 32 man field, people can lose and still be in the tournament. What a joke :doh: