Question:

ATP World Tour Finals: Too much of a good thing

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

On Sunday, World Number 2 Roger Federer won his first round robin match at the end of year event, the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, by defeating his opponent in straight sets 6-1, 6-4 to secure a place for him at the event’s semi finals.
For most people who have not been following tennis, or who do not know his opponent, this is not anything to write home about. A player such as Federer, who has won sixteen Grand Slam titles and spent 285 weeks as World Number 1, should cruise through his
opening rounds.
However, Federer’s opponent was not a little-known player, or an amateur; he defeated Spanish tennis pro David Ferrer, who is currently World Number 7.  Ferrer is one of the best players in the sport, and is the highest ranked Spanish player on the ATP after
Rafael Nadal. And that is the problem with the ATP World Tour Finals format, it pitches the best eight players of the sport against each other in two groups, who battle it out till the final four are left to contest the title in the event’s semi-finals.
This may sound like a foolproof formula for a number of reasons. For one, it ensures that the only matches played are among the very top players, and it gives the fans a guarantee of which players will be competing on specific nights. It is different from
other single-elimination tournaments, where fans have ample opportunity to complain when the player they purchased a ticker for is knocked out before the day on which his fan expects to see him. However, this lack of surprise is not necessarily a good thing.
The attempt to minimise surprise and maximise drama in an event is not without risks. The round-robin format attempts to make itself the best of all tournaments by pitting all the best players against each other, and while this does offer premium matches
at the, it also has its drawbacks.
For one, the downside of such a format is that it does away with the significance of the competition. It becomes just a match whom a player will win and another will lose. To put this into perspective, let’s consider Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. If they
were made to compete 20 times a year, the better player would be apparent. However, the mystique of the rivalry would be lost.
Another feature of this format is that it makes sure that players can lose matches and still fight it out with other players. While it may work for the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League, it might be better to follow the elimination
example set by the National Football League’s, as it seems more relative to tennis. Another element which makes elimination formats much more attractive is the element of mystery. One never knows if previously unimpressive players will defeat more experienced
ones, such as Andy Roddick’s upset by Yen-Hsun Lu at Wimbledon.
At the round robin matches, no player will stop any two players from combating each other – this makes the tournament somewhat frozen. While mystery may seem like a petty element, it does make for far more interesting tournaments. The World Tour Finals are
flawed because they lack this unpredictability and the drama which is part of the elimination tournaments.

 Tags:

   Report
SIMILAR QUESTIONS
CAN YOU ANSWER?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 0 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.