Nitto ATP Finals, 2019, London

[El Dude]

you have to laugh at us Fed fans. We're disappointed these days if our boy doesn't get a shot against Nadal off clay. I feel a bit cheated too!

Haha, I didn't mean it that way, but I hear you. The confidence pendulum has turned. But I honestly think its shitty for Rafa and his fans.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Many may say that Medvedev had no motivation to win today as he was already eliminated and that cost a spot in SF for Ralph and
he actually did his part in winning the match in the morning.

However, one must also note that Tsitsipas did not have much motivation to win either considering he had already qualified for the semifinals. Actually Tits had incentive to deliberately lose to Ralph. If Tits won that match, he was assured of becoming #1 in the group and it would mean that he would have to face Fed in the semifinals. On the other hand if Tits loses that match to Ralph, there was still some chance that he could finish second and thus avoid facing Fed in semifinals.

 

[monfed]

AHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA! Good job bullshit russian.
No WTF for the clay vulture!!

 

[Moxie]

Kind of shitty that Rafa beats Tsitsipas, but Tsitsipas moves on.

you have to laugh at us Fed fans. We're disappointed these days if our boy doesn't get a shot against Nadal off clay. I feel a bit cheated too!

It's hard to keep track, but if Rafa had lost today, he definitely wouldn't have moved on, and therefore, to meet Roger. Still, I know what you meant.

 

[Moxie]

I think all true fans of tennis are disappointed. Who doesn’t want to see Fedal again? The ticket buyers certainly wanted it, the promoters, the advertisers & TV channels, etc. Fedal is big bucks, and rightly so.

I know it'll sound like pure fannishness, since they can't meet now, but I felt some optimism about that potential match, thinking about it this morning after Rafa beat Stefanos. Not if Roger had played they way he played again Novak, obviously, but he doesn't always find his best level in consecutive matches anymore, plus, he may have wanted to hold something back for the final. Anyway, if you're not in it, there's no chance, so it's a shame that Rafa wasn't in control of his own destiny, but there it is.

 

[Moxie]

just watched the Federer - Djokovic match. I must say the way Roger celebrated the victory didn't make me thing he's ready to stop just yet. Still I would be amazed if he doesn't pack it all in at the end of next year, or at least tell us he'll pack it in at the end of the next year.

I know it's hard not to keep wondering if the end is nigh, but say Roger wins this again? Which is a distinct possibility. He's still ranked #3, which helps his chances in Majors. Unless he starts sinking like a stone, I don't see why 2020 his the last year...I mean, for now.

 

[mrzz]

you have to laugh at us Fed fans. We're disappointed these days if our boy doesn't get a shot against Nadal off clay. I feel a bit cheated too!

Shot? That was a sure win. Damn!

 

[Moxie]

Shot? That was a sure win. Damn!

No such thing. Let's see how Roger comes out tomorrow.

 

[Carol]

I know it'll sound like pure fannishness, since they can't meet now, but I felt some optimism about that potential match, thinking about it this morning after Rafa beat Stefanos. Not if Roger had played they way he played again Novak, obviously, but he doesn't always find his best level in consecutive matches anymore, plus, he may have wanted to hold something back for the final. Anyway, if you're not in it, there's no chance, so it's a shame that Rafa wasn't in control of his own destiny, but there it is.

I'm sure that Nadal wouldn't have played as bad as Novak played against Federer, it's a shame that he couldn't reach the semis
This tournament sucks! three of the finalists not even have one GS

 

[Moxie]

I'm sure that Nadal wouldn't have played as bad as Novak played against Federer, it's a shame that he couldn't reach the semis
This tournament sucks! three of the finalists not even have one GS

I was also thinking that...that Nadal would likely have played better against Roger than Novak, who was pretty meek. But there is no reason to attack the format. It is a tennis format, and remember, if it were "one and done," Rafa would have been headed back to Mallorca on Monday. I've argued for moving the tournament around and rotating surfaces, but I have no problem with the format, personally.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was also thinking that...that Nadal would likely have played better against Roger than Novak, who was pretty meek. But there is no reason to attack the format. It is a tennis format, and remember, if it were "one and done," Rafa would have been headed back to Mallorca on Monday. I've argued for moving the tournament around and rotating surfaces, but I have no problem with the format, personally.

1. I don't like the format. My primary gripe is that, it leads to potential manipulation by players (even though by and large players do not
actually indulge in manipulation). As I mentioned few years ago, here is a tank proof format. Let 12 players qualify for the WTF, form
four groups of three players each. The groups will be headed by players ranked #1 through #4. Players ranked #5 through #8 should
be randomly drawn into different groups. Similarly, players ranked #9 through #12 should be drawn into different groups. The winners
of the four group move on to semifinals (with winner of group with a player ranked #1 facing the winner of group with player ranked #4
-------similarly for #2 and #3). Then the winners of the two semifinals should play the finals. It is practical scheme also. Three days
of round robin, a day of rest, followed by a day of semifinals, a day of rest, followed by finals. Everything is over in a week. This
format is tank-proof and is provably manipulation free.

2. Surface should not rotate as this is culmination of indoor hard season.

3. But venue should rotate every four years so that different countries get a chance to host it.

 

[Moxie]

1. I don't like the format. My primary gripe is that, it leads to potential manipulation by players (even though by and large players do not
actually indulge in manipulation). As I mentioned few years ago, here is a tank proof format. Let 12 players qualify for the WTF, form
four groups of three players each. The groups will be headed by players ranked #1 through #4. Players ranked #5 through #8 should
be randomly drawn into different groups. Similarly, players ranked #9 through #12 should be drawn into different groups. The winners
of the four group move on to semifinals (with winner of group with a player ranked #1 facing the winner of group with player ranked #4
-------similarly for #2 and #3). Then the winners of the two semifinals should play the finals. It is practical scheme also. Three days
of round robin, a day of rest, followed by a day of semifinals, a day of rest, followed by finals. Everything is over in a week. This
format is tank-proof and is provably manipulation free.

2. Surface should not rotate as this is culmination of indoor hard season.

3. But venue should rotate every four years so that different countries get a chance to host it.

Before we get to the rest, where do you think manipulation or tanking has happened, in the current format?

 

[El Dude]

The main thing about tanking, is that every player gets 200 points per win in Round Robin. That's a solid chunk of points - although an ATP 250's worth. Even if they've already been eliminated from the SF, that's not something you just tank away.

 

[Moxie]

The main thing about tanking, is that every player gets 200 points per win in Round Robin. That's a solid chunk of points - although an ATP 250's worth. Even if they've already been eliminated from the SF, that's not something you just tank away.

Not even mentioning the money and the pride. Of all, I'd say that players at this level are too competitive to tank, or lose pride and position, going forward. Did Daniil Medvedev want to leave this tournament with no wins? Did Berrettini walk away better, at least with one?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Before we get to the rest, where do you think manipulation or tanking has happened, in the current format?

It has not happened in the recent past. However, it has happened. For example, Fiero posted about the manipulation that happened in the Lendl era.

The point is not so much about whether it happened. The point is to make sure to design the format in such a way that it can never happen. After all everybody is a human being and temptations arise.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not even mentioning the money and the pride. Of all, I'd say that players at this level are too competitive to tank, or lose pride and position, going forward. Did Daniil Medvedev want to leave this tournament with no wins? Did Berrettini walk away better, at least with one?

It is naïve to think that at high levels of competition tanking does not happen.

See what happened in [/url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/...layers-disqualified-for-throwing-matches.html] 2012 Badminton Olympics [/url] competition. Is not that high level competition or do you think only tennis players have pride and not badminton players.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The main thing about tanking, is that every player gets 200 points per win in Round Robin. That's a solid chunk of points - although an ATP 250's worth. Even if they've already been eliminated from the SF, that's not something you just tank away.

That is not the only scenario for manipulation. If someone can deliberately lose the last match in order to come second instead of first in their group and if in their perception, it will give them an easier SF opponent, then they could actually tank. This is like a sacrifice move in chess. You let go of 200 pts and prize money coming from that RR match in the hopes of winning 400 pts and getting more prize money by winning SF.

Not saying it happened today. But, let me tell you of the situation this morning. Going in to the match, Tits knew he has already qualified. Also, Tits knew that Roger would be his opponent if Tits wins the match against Rafa. If he loses he is at least giving himself a chance of finishing second and thus avoiding Roger in the SF. So, Tits can safely lose in the hopes of drawing an easier opponent in the SF.

 

[Moxie]

OK, but here's the thing...with only 8 players, it was really only at the last that a player might have been able to game 1st or 2nd in his group. (Someone the other day tried to game what Thiem was deciding, but, as the first player in the 3rd round, he had no idea what was going to come next.) If you create a larger field, still with round-robin, don't you create more options for gaming the results, or even, potentially, collusion? I mean, if you're going to be paranoid about it. To me, this version happens too fast for much manipulation. To me it seems, the more players, the more permutations, the more potential for monkey-shines. Am I wrong?

 

[Andy22]

If Medvedev had won, you were going to find a silver lining as well. What were you going to say if Medvedev had won? Be honest.

honest yes I would liked nadal to get into semi final against Federer but can you do then Medvedev sucking the whole event.

 

[Moxie]

1. I don't like the format. My primary gripe is that, it leads to potential manipulation by players (even though by and large players do not
actually indulge in manipulation). As I mentioned few years ago, here is a tank proof format. Let 12 players qualify for the WTF, form
four groups of three players each. The groups will be headed by players ranked #1 through #4. Players ranked #5 through #8 should
be randomly drawn into different groups. Similarly, players ranked #9 through #12 should be drawn into different groups. The winners
of the four group move on to semifinals (with winner of group with a player ranked #1 facing the winner of group with player ranked #4
-------similarly for #2 and #3). Then the winners of the two semifinals should play the finals. It is practical scheme also. Three days
of round robin, a day of rest, followed by a day of semifinals, a day of rest, followed by finals. Everything is over in a week. This
format is tank-proof and is provably manipulation free.

2. Surface should not rotate as this is culmination of indoor hard season.

3. But venue should rotate every four years so that different countries get a chance to host it.

1. Because you have only 3 players in each group, don't you have a potential tie in one or more groups, before the semis? Say players from groups 2 & 4 have a win and a loss, and sets and even points are even? How/when do you play that off?

2. "Culmination of the indoor HC season." Yeah, I've heard this one before. I've also heard folks say that HC is one thing, not distinguishable by indoor/outdoor. Why does there need to be an "indoor HC season?" There is nothing in the history of tennis that mandates or makes precious indoor tennis. What it DOES protect, however, is that the YEC stay in the northern hemisphere, and most particularly northern Europe or the northern US/Canada...or back in (parts of) Asia. For as much as Fed fans complain that there is no MS1000 on grass, what would be so bad if the YEC went to Australia/NZ, for example, one year, and got played on grass? I don't buy that indoor HC needs a "season." Remember when there was carpet? That didn't have a season.

3. Agreed that the venue should rotate. Every however many years. But I would argue then, that the surface could, too. It should go to South America, and there's no reason, that, for example, Buenos Aires should have to build an indoor HC facility for it, when they have a perfectly beautiful one for clay.