So, as Adelaide moves in to the traditional knock-out section of the tournament, what are everyone's initial impressions of the new format? I know it's early to form a definite opinion but I guess some people may have some initial thoughts on it.

personally, I found it quite difficult to keep track of what on earth was going on, and I found it didn't make the matches very exciting, 'cos you knew that even if the first match was lost the loser could still redeem themselves. I notice as well that Hewitt has gone out of Adelaide, which is possibly not the best result for the organisers.... :blink:

Here's a few quotes from Pim-Pim Johansson's blog about his views on the Round Robin format (as he's playing in Adelaide....)

So what do you think? Do you reckon the Round Robin format is going to work?

It's a bunch of t*ss, as far as I am concerned ...

MJT, so eloquently put! roflmao

But more or less correct.

It works in the Master's year end championship because of the exclusivity of the pool of players.

But it's a bad idea to have anywhere else on the tour.

You have to ask the question of why this is being brought in? :shrug:

Bottom line: money.

It will benefit the likes of the top 10 players, who are big box office draws. Can't have the likes of Fed or Rafa being knocked out early, can we? Not that this happens very often right now of course!!

It will distort head to heads between players.

It will result in strategic 'losses' occurring.

It will mess up ranking points and consequently the player rankings themselves.

Tennis matches will lose their edge where a loss doesn't necessarily mean a player will go out, nor will a player necessarily go through.

As a result, you will lose the romance of a knock-out tournament. It would ruin slams if it ever happened with them (yes, ruin them!!)

So yes, a load of t*ss..

Yes, what's wrong with a straight knockout tournament?

I remember a snooker tournament trialled a round robin system to get more players involved but I think most players didn't like it. All the "if player x beats player y by this scoreline, I go through", but if, or if, etc. etc. was just too damn confusing for most.

And Round Robin is ok for the football world cup which only happens every 4 years, and people travel to see their country play, and teams bring over huge entourages..

But really, knockout works just fine in tennis. We want gladiatorial contests where the champion is 2 sets to 1 down and has to raise their game to prevent being knocked out.. you know, that sort of thing :)

The thing with the football as well is that it is based on nationality, whereas tennis really is. We may cheer our home players more, but when they go out we always have someone else to cheer on. Very few people, i'm sure, only like one player and go to a tournie just to see them.

Plus, it appears that the ATP haven't thought of the downsides - what happens in the favourite players all end up going out in the RR stages (look at Hewitt......), where does that leave the tournament?

I would much prefer to see my favourite player go out because they lost whilst battling away to a player who was better on the day, rather than losing because another player in their group lost/won.....

Thanks, petal :D

I think there may be another reason in addition to the ones you mention, though. At the moment, the field of the top ten to twenty players, minus Fed and Rafa, are so close to each other that none of them are really dominant or stick out. The round robin format will decrease the likelihood that a player A goes through over player B, even though B is generally better. So perhaps the ATP is hoping to increase the number of players (other than Fed and Nadal) who routinely feature in the final rounds of the tournament.

I don't think it's really about Roger and Rafa --- they lose so rarely anyway that it doesn't really matter. It's about the field beyond them, which is currently fluctuating rather a lot.

Of course, that doesn't mean I approve of it --- I don't mind having different players doing well in different weeks, it all adds to the drama of it.

Its just a totally crap concept for a 32 man-draw event. it means if you win a match, you're not even guaranteed a place in the next round, and if everyone wins a match they have to weigh up sets won etc............its confusing to anyone following the tournament i feel..........

I've always hated the concept of RR tbh. makes everyone on such a level playing-field and like petalp said players start strategically losing because they know they've progressed to the quarters already.

Whatever happened to just winning and losing. Period. The ATP is screwing up the whole competitive format in mens tennis :rolleyes:

I dont get it.

It gives me a headache.

Bring back the old system.

Gotta love Johansson's comment about feeling 'like playing the last round of qualies' though - last round of qualies is where all the tantrums and drama come from, so maybe some of this will be injected into early matches in the tournament. Too many journeymen are happy just to make main draw (and therefore take home a cheque), so bringing it back to a fight for the round robin part of the draw might produce some interesting tennis. Mind you, maybe they should scrap this rr format and just televise the final rounds of qualies for similar effect... :shrug:

Hi MJT fully agree with your comments. I will add the following:

APT top heads are just useless. Come on: they are spending so much energy, time and money (I guess) to introduce this new format and in the same time they are doing nothing in the main issue: THE CALENDAR :yikes: :yikes: ...

This is simply stupid because this is like trying to do some medication to a wood leg: The wood leg will remain the same even if with your medication you would be able to change its external appearance :whistle:

At the end without changing the calendar * but with a generalization of this crap system, i.e. RR everywhere, we will end up having top players playing even more matches during a season.
But this leads directly to more injuries :yikes: , less top players ready for the end of the season :wacko: and so on and so forth...

In other terms, the real problems underlying all past seasons will be still there with a generalisation of the RR round, worst the system might even create more players' injuries near the end of the season :(

As a conclusion this system is just useless as useless are the guys at the top of the ATP.

* i.e. finally reducing the number of events and balance better the remaining among different surfaces (I want a Master on grass :pray: ..Is it so complicate???...I want - a little- more Tennis on grass -a little -less on clay; we need less events at the end of the year and so forth and so on)

Agreed with you TV....Imean instead of fixing the calender they are actually promoting injury.I mean in a round robim format you actually get to play more matches even if you lose. thus increasing the chance of injury.You could end up playing 3 matches in a group and and lose all 3,but having played 2 extra matches when if you just lost in the beginning you could be off to another tourney.What about people like Daveydonkey that play tennis everywhere in the world even in Guatamala.Imagine if every event was round robin.What will this man end up like at the end of the season!

It’s an initiative led by those who think tennis fans want to watch the best-known players all the time. This may be true of those idiots who think tennis consists of 2 weeks of Wimbledon or only counts if American players are at the top, but it isn’t true of the genuine fans like those on this board.

Two points to add to petal’s eloquent post: an RR system may produce more matches involving top players, but it will also produce more matches which have no significance for one (or even conceivably both) of the players involved. Which leads on to my second point, that RR matches are much more likely to attract betting interest.

Tennis has always been a clean sport – barring the odd positive drugs test – but it would be stupid to under-estimate the potential for betting syndicates to start increasing their influence.

Straight knockout is by far the best format for a tennis tournament.

As a tennis fan, I really don't want to have to think about maths when i watch a tennis match. It's much easier to say "if X loses, he goes out of the competition" rather than "if X loses, but Y wins, then X goes out of the competition. However, if Y loses 1 set, then Z goes through to the next round....." As far as i'm concerned the first few rounds of Adelaide just haven't been interesting 'cos it's a pain to try and understand where everyone stands etc etc.

The ATP have done it to try and increase revenue so that people will be more inclined to buy tickets for the first few days of competition if they know that they will definitely see, say the top player from their own country, for 3 matches. I personally don't think it'd be exciting to see a match that doesn't actually have any relevance to the rest of the competition.

Agreed Sprtsrep..Also it could inspire rigging of matches.Coz from what I gather you get paid more for every match you win.Lets say that Player A plays Player B and they are friends.Now Player B has no chance of qualifying so player A lets him win so that he can at least exit the tourney with a bit more cash!

Totally stupid!

drop the round robin format. it doesn't do anything for me and i don't like change :angry:

I can only agree with what's been said here, particularly TV's comments about the calendar.

And I too want a Master's on grass: Wimbledon is supposed to be the most prestigious slam, so why is there no Master's leading up to it? Though I do like clay tennis, too, there seems to be an awful lot of it compared to grass.

Moreover MJT it will be a great occasion to swap a Master Series event in Germany (eliminate Hamburg and raise the status of Halle :rolleyes: ):
Germany is a great country in terms of Tennis history so Germany deserves a Master Series. :)
Halle as a Master Series on grass and then it would be followed by the Queen and finally the MASTER OF ALL Wimbledon (The Ring of Power :D )...Which implies Wimbledon would start two weeks later (at the minimum).

We are not asking for the moon: Unfortunately it is really unlikely that we will see something changing soon on that side: The ATP will continue to focus on main issues like " :yikes: how create more Exiting :yikes: matches": My forecast is simple, expect a generalisation of the three sets match even on the GS events :( : SAD :(

Yeah, I'm finding the whole RR format too confusing to follow. This week it's particularly bad as there are three men's tournies on and the Hopman plus two women's - phew!

I agree there should be more tournaments on grass and it would be great to see a Masters on grass.

Plus, Paris already has the French GS - why do they also need a masters aswell???

As long as the round robin format is kept to a minimum - maybe 2 or 3 tournaments a season, none of which are important - it might provide a bit of variety and excitement. With the seeding format the way it is, we often see quite similar draws and match-ups, and the round robin would probably change that. It certainly shouldn't be implemented on a permanent basis though, simply because a player could have the win of their life and it count for nothing, and because a player already through might not make so much effort in his final match, giving his opponent a clear advantage. In knockout play, every match means something.

I don't agree that it's confusing or complicated, as long as the rules were clear it'd be pretty simple since computers calculate it and we'd all be aware of the various permutations. And if the computers were still confusing, myself and Perfector would take charge of the maths ;)2 ("3 wins for Federer... 0 points isn't it?" "Yep... Bogdanovic topped the group with his 0 wins").

I'd like to see a grass masters too, preferably on fast grass like Wimbledon in the 90s. Players would be encouraged to do more serve and volley which'd make a change. Ancic or Karlovic vs Federer on this surface would be intriguing.

Yes it would be good to have a grass Masters before Wimbledon . And its ridiculous having the Stella Artois staring the day after the French final. A bigger gap is needed .

flirting with round robin play or the changes made last year to doubles should not be main concern of the atp. they need to address the lengthy playing season and the injuries that are occurring. a shortened and re-shuffled season is needed. and certainly scheduling between the FO and W comes to mind. a masters on grass is a sweet idea and great for tennis.

the cynic in me says it's just a way to boost advertising revenue due to the top players remaining in the competition.

At the same time, it could well help inspire confidence amongst the up and comers who may progress further into a competition but who aren't as strong as the current top players.

Unfortunately, I then see an 'education system' problem coming up (apologies to all involved in the education system)

Rewarding mediocrity results in lower standards.

Just my 2 €cents

I can not stand the idea of the round robin system. Really do not understand the point of introducing it. As far as I'm concerned it's far more exciting to watch a match knowing it's do or die, rather than they may lose but there's still a chance of progressing. Really hope it disappears ASAP :angry:

I have to say i agree with you WA for exactly the reason you gave and this must be a big enough reason to ditch it its just a joke.I think the feeling of winning a huge tournament would not be so great if you have had a loss in the tournament already it would just take the gloss out of the victory.

I can see that there are both sides that you could argue for the Round Robin system.

For - The Round Robin system allows the tournaments to keep the top players in longer and therefore make the overall quality of the final matches much better. This then generates more TV income as more and more people become interested in the tight matches that would end the tournament. This would be because top players would be able to afford to lose a match in the Round Robin and still make it through.

Against - The Round Robin limits the amount of chances that young players get to shine and that I feel is a real dissapointment. For them, it really makes them have to work harder to beat the top players and could wear them out if they were to make it through. There would therefore be less major upsets... Also, like I said, the top players would be able to throw a match in the Round Robin making some of their matches pointless to watch. That would really be dissapointing to see.

Personally I don't like the Round Robin idea simply because I don't like change. I prefer to see a straight round by round system where players can really cause massive shocks in a tournament and still lead to interesting finals.

I seem to remember that the ATP wanted to 'trial' it this year, to end up making it 'compulsory' :yikes: (though for which events I don't know).

I don't see it coming to this after the criticism it has come in for, though. :pray:

Here's an old opinion (from 2000) from a guy who thought all Masters series tourneys should be RR. :yikes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/1050422.stm

But then, what do you expect from someone who can't spell "independent" :shrug:

From the ATP website:

:blink:

Could there be any better argument against RR than this paragraph?

OK, it turns out there can be ... the Blake / del Potro mess. :blink:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Centre_Court/in...2691&st=0&#last

With thanks to TV for posting some interesting articles...... :D

I think cricket's Duckworth-Lewis method makes more sense.

This is an interesting article from espn:

Debacle in the Desert

Here's just one quote from it:

I agree with Murray's view!

If a match is being played where one player has no chance to proceed and the other only needs a set, then the door is wide open for some either financial arrangement or a 'you scratch my back' approach.

It is a stupid system! I wonder if Max Mosely has a hand in it somewhere - he is the FIA boss who is well known for dreaming up stupid rules to hinder motorsport, this stinks of something he would do!

:wacko:

An article from BBC Sport:

Tennis chief comes out fighting

ATP executive chairman Etienne de Villiers is clearly a man who believes in fronting up to his mistakes.

Having apologised once for wrongly intervening in a row over the Tour's controversial round-robin format, he did so again in London on Monday.

The South African was at Queen's Club to lend his support to this year's pre-Wimbledon Artois Championships, but knew the system remains a hot topic.

He made it hotter by personally reinstating James Blake in last week's Las Vegas Open, believing his exit under the new rules to be unfair.

De Villiers swiftly saw the error of his ways and reversed his decision, adding weight to the view that the format has not been properly thought through.

Several leading players have been critical, with Roger Federer predicting it will not be around next year.

The world number one said of De Villiers: "He's burnt his hands on this issue, that's for sure."

Normally a model of Swiss diplomacy, when Federer delivers such a damning verdict, the tennis world tends to sit up and take notice.

Maybe that's why De Villiers went to such pains to shoulder the blame for the Blake mistake at Queen's.

Having declined to discuss it during questions about the Artois event - which decided last month not to use the round-robin format having initially indicated it would - De Villiers launched into a bravura defence of his ATP mission.

"If you want to make changes and move forward, you have to accept you will make mistakes," the former Disney Television boss told the assembled media.

"I made one over James Blake, but the important thing is to learn from it and move on.

"I know some feel the whole round-robin experiment was doomed from the outset, that it was cobbled together.

"But a lot of effort and research went into deciding the format, assessing what the complexities were likely to be, and what rules were best applied.

"We knew there were going to be issues, but that's the beauty of experimenting - it gives you the freedom to change your mind.

"We said, 'Let's see what happens, get a sense of what the issues are and how frequently they arise, and whether the negatives outweigh the positives.'

"We've learnt a lot, and the results of the research we've done among fans and tournaments organisers is incredibly supportive."

The dynamic De Villiers was recruited in 2005 to revitalise a men's tour that was, in the eyes of many players, fans and pundits, in serious decline.

He has revamped men's doubles, replacing the third set with a tie-break, and allowed players to challenge line-calls through 'Hawk-Eye' technology.

"We're on the right path," he claimed. "We'll make mistakes along the way, but I'm happy with that.

"The thing is to make new ones - learn from past errors and move on. That was the mantra when I was at Disney.

"I don't regret trying new things to help make the sport bigger and better. We will continue to experiment, and we need a sense of perspective here.

"If you want to believe the sky is falling in because of this issue, that this is a 'disaster', you can believe it.

"We didn't make a decision to invade Iraq. I've heard words like 'doom' and 'apocalyptic,' but 2.5m people starving in North Africa is a disaster.

"This is about a furry ball going over a net. This is a storm in a tea cup."

The ATP Board will discuss the round-robin format in Miami on 22 March.

Will the views of Federer, Blake and other critics hold sway, or can De Villiers show he has seen enough signs to call his experiment a success?