Week 47 - ATP World Tour Finals - London (indoor hard)

philwrig · Hall of fame

RE: Week 47 - ATP World Tour Finals - London (indoor hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

No, Tipsy would definitely not have inherited any Andy wins. If Andy had won, that would kind of just have gone into the abyss ( other than Andy getting the ranking points ). Tipsy would still start on 0 wins.

If Andy had won, it would certainly be generous in the extreme ( and silly ) to present an alternate with a previous player's win or wins, so actually makes sense.

And my feelings are that Sky are talkng rubbish * about him inheriting anything from Andy ( though to be honest I can't see at the moment that the WTF rules on the ATP site are absolutely clear on this )

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Finals/2011/About/Rules.aspx

* I base this on the rule wording I quoted in my last post for the three players on one match won situation, when it appears a guy that comes in and wins one match and loses one match simply has the other match disregarded and is placed behind these that won 1 and lost 2. Also from my vaguish memory of previous WTF withdrawal situations.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 23rd of November 2011 06:31:35 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

I'll take your word for it Indy, it did seem an odd thing to do any way.

steven · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:
According to Sky, Tipsy inherited Andy's position i.e 0-1 matches with 0-2 sets and 9-13 games, so if Andy had won his first match Tipsy wouldn't have started with the one win ?

Wow - even the BBC would be embarrassed to come out with misinformation that bad! disbelief

Tipsy starts from scratch because the first tiebreak for players with an equal number of wins is the number of matches played, which is the same as starting with a loss, but he doesn't inherit Andy's set difference or game difference.

indiana · Tennis legend

steven wrote:
philwrig wrote:
According to Sky, Tipsy inherited Andy's position i.e 0-1 matches with 0-2 sets and 9-13 games, so if Andy had won his first match Tipsy wouldn't have started with the one win ?
Wow - even the BBC would be embarrassed to come out with misinformation that bad!
Tipsy starts from scratch because the first tiebreak for players with an equal number of wins is the number of matches played, which is the same as starting with a loss, but he doesn't inherit Andy's set difference or game difference.

Ah, yes I now see number of matches played next after number of wins in the rules, like staring me in the face in rules I have read a few times ashamed ( not just by implication from the three tied scenario )

Yes, that really is verrry poor by Sky.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 23rd of November 2011 08:07:38 PM

philwrig · Hall of fame

Sky corrected the faux pas this evening.

eblunt · Club Coach

I went last night, and very dissapointing it was too. The top 3 all look completely knackered. Djoko was interested up to 3-3 first set then after that couldn't hit a backhand to save his life. Rafa isn't 100% - I know Fed was great, but getting bageled isn't a fully fit Rafa's style. It's so obviously a end of season big payday that they'll all mysteriously just seem to be able to get themselves 'fit' enough to turn up and start at least.

Don't get me started on the doubles. It's so obviously 'poor cousin', i.e. the lenghts they go to make sure it can't over-run its allotted time slot; maximum 7 points in a game, maximum two sets. I was expecting a big net to drop down and end play any time a rally exceeded 6 shots (which wasn't often anyway). The poor players seem to just know they're some dort of low grade warm up act that'll get whisked off stage if they over-run by 1 minute.

indiana · Tennis legend

Well, the ATP's showpiece end of year event is sure going to be improved by following it immediately on from the Paris Masters without the week's gap ?!

Though, I guess the Paris Masters might have reason too to be worried about players going ( even more ) mssing for their event, so some might be reasonably refreshed for the WTF.

Julia Carrot · All-time great

I went yesterday pm. Federer v Fish. Even though it was a 'dead rubber' I still really enjoyed it. Last year I saw Andy v Fed which really was really painful, so anything was an improvement I guess. Plus, I somehow had a seat in a Suite this year which really was a treat and I was determined to enjoy it whatever.

Ratty · County player

It's good to see that this tournament is getting the idea about appropriate pay levels for the doubles players:

Fed: $1,630,000

Mirnyi & Nestor: $143,750 each
(Actually, that still seems quite a lot ...)

Ratty · County player

And the dominance of the Big 4 intensifies: in 2011 they won all 14 of the big tournaments. Previously, others had always won at least 2 of them.

And since 2005 they have won 26/28 slams; 51/63 Masters; and 5/7 Tour Championships.

-- Edited by Ratty on Monday 28th of November 2011 05:48:34 AM