Questioning the WTA's rule
The self-contradiction and inconsequence of WTA's rule
There're some excerpts from WTA's official notes of Championships Madrid:
ROUND-ROBIN TIE-BREAKER RULES
The final standings of each group shall be determined by the first of the following methods that apply:
a. Greatest number of wins
b. Greatest number of matches played
c. Head-to-head results from the Round Robin if only two (2) players are tied, or if three (3) players are tied, then:
i) If three (3) players have one win, a player having played fewer than all three (3) matches is automatically eliminated and the player advancing to the single elimination competition is the winner of the match-up of the two (2) players tied with 1-2 records; or ii) Highest percentage of sets won; or iii) Highest percentage of games won
But before the last day of round-robin, the WTA official notes wrote: If Mauresmo wins in straight sets, she will place No.1 in the Yellow Group. If she wins in three, she will place No.2 in her group. If she loses, she will place No.4.
I believe according to the rules above (Head-to-head results from the Round Robin if only two players are tied), Mauresmo should be No.1 in the group if she beat Henin-Hardenne, no matter in straight sets or in three sets.
If when only two players are tied, their standings should be decided by head-to-head results, so when three players are tied, their standings also should be decided by "head-to-head results" -- "Highest percentage of sets won" and "Highest percentage of games won" -- AMONG THEM -- not including their match results against the fourth player. I think the current rule is not completely reasonable.
If the rule accommodated, Petrova would move into SF if Henin-Hardenne defeats Mauresmo, not Hingis.
Last edited by FionaZiYi; Nov 10th, 2006 at 02:42 PM.