PDA

View Full Version : Radwanska needs to win a set, otherwise Zvonareva advances, Wozniacki is OUT 100%


Patrick345
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Radwanska wins a set, she is through. Otherwise Zvonareva advances. Wozniacki has been eliminated.

There you go. So everybody can see it. ;)

delicatecutter
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:04 PM
Then why doesn't the WTA know this?

gumoll
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:07 PM
and Kvitova is 100% the group winner :p

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Radwanska wins a set, she is through. Otherwise Zvonareva advances. Wozniacki has been eliminated.

There you go. So everybody can see it. ;)

You mean in theory. The WTA has already determined Zvonareva's fate, by the looks of it.

Ooh, the plot thickens.... :lol:

cherboy
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Radwanska wins a set, she is through. Otherwise Zvonareva advances. Wozniacki has been eliminated.

There you go. So everybody can see it. ;)

You're right! Thank you.
:drool:

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:09 PM
and Kvitova is 100% the group winner :p

Not if she loses to Radwanska. ;)

pov
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:12 PM
1. Petra Kvitova (2-0 : 4-0)

2. Agnieszka Radwanska (1-1 : 3-3)

3. Vera Zvonareva (1-2 : 3-5)

4. Caroline Wozniacki (1-2 : 3-5)


As I understand it - if Radwanska wins a set, she's in. If she doesn't there's a 3-way tie in both matches and sets and it'll be based on whoever has the highest percentage of games.

cherboy
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:13 PM
Pushniacki is 1:2 [3:5] (34/41) -7
Zvonareva is 1:2 [3:5] (35/37) -2
Radwanska is 1:1 [3:3] (27/30) -3

Aga won -> semifinal
Aga lost in 3sets 1:2 [4:5] -> semifinal
Aga lost in 2sets 1:2 [3:5] -> OUT because clothes result would be 6:7 6:7, and her game average would be minus 5, while vera is minus 2.

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Aargh.... someone PLEASE answer these questions:

1. For a 3-way tiebreaker, are the sets and games from the entire group taken into account (including Kvitty's matches) or only b/w those tied?

2. Is this document the official WTA update? http://www.wtachampionships.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/MatchNotes/2011/808.pdf

This says Zvonareva losing eliminates her, and Woz could overtake Rad depending on how badly Rad loses to Kvit.

bandabou
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:16 PM
:lol: Really guys, math CAN'T be that difficult..

Raiden
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:17 PM
The idiots at WTA don't even know how to calculate & apply their own rules properly:haha:

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Come to think of it, whether the tiebreaker assumes the whole group or just those tied, Zvonareva > Woz because both lost by the same margin to Kvitova.

Zvonareva better pray the WTA does the calculations again.

Sammo
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Please goddess Petra have compassion for the mere mortal Zvonareva and her many many mental defects and throw Agnieszka where she belongs, out of the Year End Masters.

doooma6816
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:20 PM
The WTA=idiots.

Sammo
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many mental defects.

Geertvg
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:22 PM
This is ridiculous. Why have rules?

Patrick345
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:24 PM
Please goddess Petra have compassion for the mere mortal Zvonareva and her many many mental defects and throw Agnieszka where she belongs, out of the Year End Masters.

:lol::lol:

Screw Vera. She doesn´t deserve anything. If Kvitova throws the match, Zvonareva has no rights to complain.

Jorn
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:25 PM
The loser of the Radwanska vs. Zvonareva match will be eliminated from the Championships WTA what ithink ppl has seen... :o

Miracle Worker
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:26 PM
Petra will play to win her match against Aga, cause 2nd in this group will play against Vika :oh:

pov
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:26 PM
If Kvitova throws the match,


Is that a preemptive approach? So if Radwanska wins you'll say it's because Kvitova threw the match?

edificio
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:26 PM
Someone with a good handle on the rules needs to e-mail the WTA and then Tweet the tennis news sources.

crusader2
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:26 PM
If radwanska wins kvitova, radwanska will be a group leader because she defeated kvitova. If radwanska loses kvitova 3 sets, kvitova(group leader) and radwanska are in semis because radwanska will have a better set avarage than zvonreava. If radwanska loses kvitova 2 sets, kvitova(group leader) and zvonereva are the semis. Because, radwanska and zvonareva will have same set avarage but zvonareva will have better game avarage than radwasnka.

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:30 PM
If radwanska wins kvitova, radwanska will be a group leader because she defeated kvitova. If radwanska loses kvitova 3 sets, kvitova(group leader) and radwanska are in semis because radwanska will have a better set avarage than zvonreava. If radwanska loses kvitova 2 sets, kvitova(group leader) and zvonereva are the semis. Because, radwanska and zvonareva will have same set avarage but zvonareva will have better game avarage than radwasnka.

Yes genius, we got all that.

Question is, did the WTA? They've already written Zvonareva out of the tournament, apparently.

TheBoiledEgg
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:31 PM
Finally WTA seen sense
confirm Wozniacki out

we knew that 2 hours ago

killerqueen
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Where are people seeing the WTA writing out Vera? I can't see nothing on the website about the Aga/Vera match at all, let alone about what repercussions the result had.

Patrick345
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:34 PM
Is that a preemptive approach? So if Radwanska wins you'll say it's because Kvitova threw the match?

No that´s me telling the truth. Kvitova doesn´t need this match to advance. She doens´t fear anybody, so she´ll approach this match like Kim Clijsters did last years. Hammer away at literally every ball, keep the rallies extremly short. If the balls go in fine, if not whatever. Don´t act like Radwanska has any proactive role in what happens on that court tomorrow. Kvitova is not afraid of Azarenka. Radwanska just has to fight for her life and give Kvitova a reason to back down from the fight.

Monzanator
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Remember Clijsters last year in her final RR match? ;)

Excelscior
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:39 PM
No that´s me telling the truth. Kvitova doesn´t need this match to advance. She doens´t fear anybody, so she´ll approach this match like Kim Clijsters did last years. Hammer away at literally every ball, keep the rallies extremly short. If the balls go in fine, if not whatever. Don´t act like Radwanska has any proactive role in what happens on that court tomorrow. Kvitova is not afraid of Azarenka. Radwanska just has to fight for her life and give Kvitova a reason to back down from the fight.

Wow!

Well said, explained.

We'll see?

I think Petra may also take her approach in Linz; which is work on different aspects of her game, plus be more relaxed, while trying to win.

pov
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:41 PM
Don´t act like Radwanska has any proactive role in what happens on that court tomorrow.
No act. Radwanska has as much say in the outcome as Kvitova. BTW If you think Kvitova doesn't get nervous ("fear anybody") you're not really a fan of hers.

flareon
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:43 PM
On the wta tables after the match it said vera is second at the moment

Patrick345
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Remember Clijsters last year in her final RR match? ;)

Exactly. Clijsters had to work so hard to lose the 2nd set 5-7 to Zvonareva. Obviously she was playing Vera, who cannot close a match, even when the opponent tries to intentionally lose. It was like Serena desperately trying to lose to Zakopalova in Marbella, and Zakopalova kept making DFs not realizing what was going on. Drove Serena nuts. :lol::lol:

Mynarco
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:54 PM
kvitova doesn't want to spoil her indoor record. Petra in 2

LightWarrior
Oct 27th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Remember Clijsters last year in her final RR match? ;)

What happened exactly ? Clijsters was already qualified and tanked against Zvonareva, did she ?

ZODIAC
Oct 27th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Azazenka or Kvitova will win YEC 2011

Monzanator
Oct 27th, 2011, 10:18 PM
What happened exactly ? Clijsters was already qualified and tanked against Zvonareva, did she ?

Pretty much. It was so obvious even ES commentators didn't pretend something else was happening and described this as a "hitting practice" rather than a WTA match :lol:

bostero
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:12 PM
If someone can confirm this for me it would be appreciated, for the sake of a competition I'm playing with someone based on our pre-tournament predictions;

Am I right in calculating that it's impossible for Vera to finish 4th in the group?

I have the breakdown as such,

Any Radwanska win will leave the group as follows 1. Aga 2. Petra 3. Vera 4 Caro (Aga ahead of Petra based on h2h and likewise Vera ahead of Caro)

A 2-1 Petra win will leave the group as follows 1. Petra 2. Aga 3. Vera 4. Caro (Aga ahead based on set %, and Vera ahead of Caro based on games %)

A 2-0 Petra win means that games % will split Aga/Vera/Caro, which means Aga could finish anywhere from 2nd-4th, Vera could finish 2nd-3rd and Caro could finish 3rd-4th.

Correct? Thanks in advance for any confirmations or corrections. :)

earthcrystal
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:14 PM
Aargh.... someone PLEASE answer these questions:

1. For a 3-way tiebreaker, are the sets and games from the entire group taken into account (including Kvitty's matches) or only b/w those tied?

2. Is this document the official WTA update? http://www.wtachampionships.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/MatchNotes/2011/808.pdf

This says Zvonareva losing eliminates her, and Woz could overtake Rad depending on how badly Rad loses to Kvit.

Didn't finish reading the thread, but someone is going to look pretty fooling based on this. Has anyone spotted the error? They have forgotten to include the set Vera won today. They only have her at 2-3 instead of 3-3 under SETS...so all the following permutations are based on the wrong stat. Yikes.

bostero
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:27 PM
What happened exactly ? Clijsters was already qualified and tanked against Zvonareva, did she ?

She started the match to win it, but Vera ended up winning the first set. Both Kim and Vera were already qualified and they had semis to play the next day. From that moment Kim's attitude was obvious and understandable - why play 3 sets? There were times when she was putting it on a plate for Vera to win and Vera was just playing horribly and unable to put Kim away. Kim could often be seen laughing towards her team, as if to say, "what do i have to do to lose this match?"

In the end Vera won the second, but made very hard work of it.

Myself and a few friends won quite a bit of money that day because some of the in-running books didn't seem to factor in the obvious, which was that Kim was playing to lose after the 1st set. You could have got Vera at 1/2 to win after the first set, which was a gift, considering Kim was doing everything she could to lose. I was pretty lucky myself that day because I had actually bet on Kim to win the match at the beginning, and was able to react quick enough after the first set to come out of the match with a profit.

As some have mentioned in the thread already, I expect Petra will have the same attitude Kim had, she'll want the match over in two sets - win or lose, there is no real benefit to her not to do so. And you could argue it's worth avoiding Vika in the semis, but in my view, Petra v Vika will decide the tournament anyway, whether it's the SF or F.

The Kaz
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:30 PM
Remember Clijsters last year in her final RR match? ;)

She was the reason Sam lost in the SF... she won the group and was all ready to face her punchbag Vera until Clijsters decided to fuck it up for her :sobbing:

jrm
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:35 PM
don't see why Kvitova should tank or lose a set to probably tired Radwanska :shrug:

there is a quite some points on stake and Kvitova is closing the gap towards No1 ranking, 160 points make a difference

pav
Oct 27th, 2011, 11:44 PM
I remember Bepa (don't like to mention her name at the moment) getting an extra 100 grand for going through her group unbeaten, so that would be an incentive if it still applies.

dragonflies
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:23 AM
If someone can confirm this for me it would be appreciated, for the sake of a competition I'm playing with someone based on our pre-tournament predictions;

Am I right in calculating that it's impossible for Vera to finish 4th in the group?

I have the breakdown as such,

Any Radwanska win will leave the group as follows 1. Aga 2. Petra 3. Vera 4 Caro (Aga ahead of Petra based on h2h and likewise Vera ahead of Caro)

A 2-1 Petra win will leave the group as follows 1. Petra 2. Aga 3. Vera 4. Caro (Aga ahead based on set %, and Vera ahead of Caro based on games %)

A 2-0 Petra win means that games % will split Aga/Vera/Caro, which means Aga could finish anywhere from 2nd-4th, Vera could finish 2nd-3rd and Caro could finish 3rd-4th.

Correct? Thanks in advance for any confirmations or corrections. :)



You are corrected for the most parts. The bold part however needs some corrections. Caro will always be 4th regardless what happens as her win/ lost games is at -7 now, while Vera's at -2, Aga's at -3. So any 2-0 wins from Petra will make Vera finishes at 2nd because it means Aga's -3 will get even more negative, aka. Vera advances. :)

lizziewtafan
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Please goddess Petra have compassion for the mere mortal Zvonareva and her many many mental defects and throw Agnieszka where she belongs, out of the Year End Masters.

This:) by the way im new here,i really like this board, all of you guys always make me laugh :wavey:

Uranus
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:27 AM
Why would Radwanska be #1 of the group if she won tomorrow? Because she would've defeated Petra, ignoring the W/L sets ratio?

Petra is 4-0 in sets so far. Aga is 3-3.

If Aga wins in 2: Petra 4-2, Aga 5-3 -> Does the fact she won more sets matters? Or is the W/L ratio used only?
If the fact Aga won 5 sets and Petra 4 matters: Aga is #1.
If the ratio (both +2) is used only: Petra is 24-12 so far. Aga is 27-30. Thus if Petra wins > 4 games, she's #1.

If Aga wins in 3: Petra 5-2, Aga 5-4 -> Wouldn't Petra be #1?

Can anyone correct me? I don't know the exact rules, TBH.

dragonflies
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:41 AM
Why would Radwanska be #1 of the group if she won tomorrow? Because she would've defeated Petra, ignoring the W/L sets ratio?

Petra is 4-0 in sets so far. Aga is 3-3.

If Aga wins in 2: Petra 4-2, Aga 5-3 -> Does the fact she won more sets matters? Or is the W/L ratio used only?
If the fact Aga won 5 sets and Petra 4 matters: Aga is #1.
If the ratio (both +2) is used only: Petra is 24-12 so far. Aga is 27-30. Thus if Petra wins > 4 games, she's #1.

If Aga wins in 3: Petra 5-2, Aga 5-4 -> Wouldn't Petra be #1?

Can anyone correct me? I don't know the exact rules, TBH.


If 2 players are tied, ie Petra and Aga are both 2-1 in matches, then h2h btw the 2 players will be used to break the tie.

Aga beats Petra, so she wins the group.

Morning Morgan
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:48 AM
Yes, I bothered to read the rules yesterday and it's as such:

In the case of a TWO way tie, order of priority for breaking the tie is
1) Greatest number of matches PLAYED (so if one person wins 2-0 as an alternate, and another has a 2-1 record, player with 2-1 record goes on top)
2) H2H in the round robin stage (this explains why Aga will top the group if Aga beats Petra, as both would have a 2-1 record, but Aga wins the group based on H2H in the round robin)

For the case of a THREE way tie, breaking the tie criteria are, by highest priority
1) Greatest number of matches played
2) % of sets won
3) % of games won
4) If none of the above breaks the tie, actual WTA H2H comes into play i.e. NOT the round robin H2H

delicatecutter
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:48 AM
Nice to see the WTA has finally realized their error. I would love to see Aga win a set tomorrow. She will have a good chance against Vika in the SF.

sammy01
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:51 AM
She started the match to win it, but Vera ended up winning the first set. Both Kim and Vera were already qualified and they had semis to play the next day. From that moment Kim's attitude was obvious and understandable - why play 3 sets? There were times when she was putting it on a plate for Vera to win and Vera was just playing horribly and unable to put Kim away. Kim could often be seen laughing towards her team, as if to say, "what do i have to do to lose this match?"

In the end Vera won the second, but made very hard work of it.

Myself and a few friends won quite a bit of money that day because some of the in-running books didn't seem to factor in the obvious, which was that Kim was playing to lose after the 1st set. You could have got Vera at 1/2 to win after the first set, which was a gift, considering Kim was doing everything she could to lose. I was pretty lucky myself that day because I had actually bet on Kim to win the match at the beginning, and was able to react quick enough after the first set to come out of the match with a profit.

As some have mentioned in the thread already, I expect Petra will have the same attitude Kim had, she'll want the match over in two sets - win or lose, there is no real benefit to her not to do so. And you could argue it's worth avoiding Vika in the semis, but in my view, Petra v Vika will decide the tournament anyway, whether it's the SF or F.

that second set was one of the funniest in wta history. kim has enough pride to not serve df after df, but it was getting to the stage at the end of the set i could see kim considering it. she was giving vera puff ball mid court shots and standing still and vera would hit it into the net or out.

i remember the 2005 RR match between mary and momo was meaningless to, and sam smith saying the last thing either would want is a 3 set dogfight. mary lost the 1st set, came out swinging for the lines in set 2, landed them and they found themself in a 3rd set. by then neither wanted to lose it because 3 sets of work to lose a meaningless match is :tape:

there was no way last year kim was going to find herself in the position mary and momo were in 2005.

jrm
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:55 AM
I would love to see Aga win a set tomorrow. She will have a good chance against Vika in the SF.

have you seen Azarenka this week :lol: i don't see anyone stoppingher except Kvitova

delicatecutter
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:58 AM
I haven't gotten to watch any tennis this week :sobbing: but Aga plays much differently than Stosur (Vika's bitch) or (slumping) Li. Tokyo wasn't *that* long ago. I anticipate another battle should Aga and Vika play.

Papillon.
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:02 AM
This thread is correct. I will be utterly disgusted if the WTA fuck up their own rules.

rimon
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:05 AM
Why will Radwanska be group leader if she beats Kvitova?

Never mind, I see that it's the H-2-H between the top two players, although, that seems like a dodgy rule to me.

sammy01
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:13 AM
Why will Radwanska be group leader if she beats Kvitova?

if 2 players tie in matches won/lost it goes down to who won the match between those 2 players and that would be aga.

if there is a 3way tie it goes down to sets and games, as like this year it is highly likely that A beats B beats C beats A (aga beat vera, vera beat caro, caro beat aga) thus no one player has a H2H advantage over the other 2.

Matt01
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:34 AM
don't see why Kvitova should tank or lose a set to probably tired Radwanska :shrug:

there is a quite some points on stake and Kvitova is closing the gap towards No1 ranking, 160 points make a difference


She won't reach YE-#1 anyway so it's possible she might tank the match to be fit for her semi final. Other players have done similar before. Kvitova would have more to lose if she won her last RR match and then lost her semifinal.

In this case, we see again why RR is just a stupid system...Kvitova is already qualified for the semis and Radwanska isn't and now they have to play against each other in the last match of their group...ridiculous :facepalm:

Balltossovic
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:40 AM
Hey guys, I really didn't understand the schedule this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in previous years, didn't the two winners on the first day, and two losers play each other?

Example: Caro beat Aga day one. Petra beat Vera day one. Should yesterday's matches have been played between Vera and Aga, and Petra and Caro.
I thought they used to do this so no one would have a -2 on day two. That way everyone would have a win and a loss. Did this change, and when?

twinbridge
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:41 AM
Yes, I bothered to read the rules yesterday and it's as such:

In the case of a TWO way tie, order of priority for breaking the tie is
1) Greatest number of matches PLAYED (so if one person wins 2-0 as an alternate, and another has a 2-1 record, player with 2-1 record goes on top)
2) H2H in the round robin stage (this explains why Aga will top the group if Aga beats Petra, as both would have a 2-1 record, but Aga wins the group based on H2H in the round robin)

For the case of a THREE way tie, breaking the tie criteria are, by highest priority
1) Greatest number of matches played
2) % of sets won
3) % of games won
4) If none of the above breaks the tie, actual WTA H2H comes into play i.e. NOT the round robin H2H


There is one section with regard to "3-player tiebreaker" where talks about "If three (3) players each have one (1) win, a player having played less 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"

in case no player played less number of matches, and match percentage of won and game percentage of won can't break the tie, it refers to

"If the above tie-breaking methods produce one (1) superior player (1st
place) or one (1) inferior player (3rd place), and the two (2) remaining
players are tied, the tie between those two (2) players shall be broken
by head-to-head record."

That was confusing, but it seems that "head to head record" is different to "Head-to-head results" mentioned in the previous section:

a. Greatest number of wins;
b. Greatest number of matches played; or
c. Head-to-head results if only two (2) players are tied,

Even this "head to head record" could be interrupted as "actual WTA H2H comes into play" , it could be kind of misreading. It is more reasonable, the exact text in the tournament rule mentions "H2H record", in which implies the H2H record in RR, not WTA H2H record.

But your understanding could be correct. What a mess for the ambiguous text of the tournament rule.

kingcretos
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:48 AM
Ok, this is my first post and I will sound like an arrogant sod, but I will try and clear things up for everyone. No one has got this correct yet.

If Radwanska beats Kvitova she wins the group and Kvitova goes through in second. This is concrete.

If Kvitova beats Radwanska 2-1, then Kvitova wins the group and Radwanska goes through in second place. This is concrete.

If Kvitova beats Radwanska 2-0, then Kvitova wins the group and second place in the group is determined by head to head results if there is a 2 way tie and by the percentage of sets won if there is a 3 way tie. If that doesn't clear things up, then second place is determined on the percentage of games won. As there would be a 3 way tie in this scenario we forget the head to head results then.

So on with the winning set percentages. All 3 of the second place girls would be tied with a 37.5% winning set percentage. So on with the winning game percentages then. We can now conclusively rule out Zvonareva or Wozniacki. Zvonareva has a winning game percentage of 48.61% and Wozniacki has a winning game percentage of 45.33%. Wozniacki is OUT and the WTA official who tried to eliminate Zvonareva live on air is a bit of a numpty! Radwanksa currently has a winning game percentage of 50.88%. To avoid it dropping below 48.61% she has to win at least 4 games in both sets, with more than 4 games won in one of the sets. If she loses either set to 3 games or less she is out. These are the rest of the permutations:

If Kvitova wins 6-4 6-4 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.05% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.10% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.15% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.75% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.78% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-6 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 49.40% and she is THROUGH.

Looking at the permutations a little more closely it shows that Radwanska has to take at least one set to a tie break. Furthermore, there is no possible permutation where Radwanska and Zvonareva can be tied with a winning game percentage. I hope I don't have to ring Istanbul tomorrow to explain their own rules to them. :)

delicatecutter
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:53 AM
Everyone else has said Radwanska has to win a set to get the second spot, so maybe you should ring up the WTA. Or other members in this forum.

Cleffa
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:55 AM
Nice to see the WTA has finally realized their error. I would love to see Aga win a set tomorrow. She will have a good chance against Vika in the SF.

This thread is correct. I will be utterly disgusted if the WTA fuck up their own rules.

What's WTA's "official" announcement say? I don't get it the math shouldn't be that difficult right what mistake did they make?

delicatecutter
Oct 28th, 2011, 01:59 AM
What's WTA's "official" announcement say? I don't get it the math shouldn't be that difficult right what mistake did they make?

They kept saying whoever lost between Radwanska and Zvonaryova would be out.

Cleffa
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:00 AM
So on with the winning set percentages. All 3 of the second place girls would be tied with a 37.5% winning set percentage. So on with the winning game percentages then. We can now conclusively rule out Zvonareva or Wozniacki. Zvonareva has a winning game percentage of 48.61% and Wozniacki has a winning game percentage of 45.33%. Wozniacki is OUT and the WTA official who tried to eliminate Zvonareva live on air is a bit of a numpty! Radwanksa currently has a winning game percentage of 50.88%. To avoid it dropping below 48.61% she has to win at least 4 games in both sets, with more than 4 games won in one of the sets. If she loses either set to 3 games or less she is out. These are the rest of the permutations:


Thank you thats very clear:worship:.

Irute
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Ok, this is my first post and I will sound like an arrogant sod, but I will try and clear things up for everyone. No one has got this correct yet.

If Radwanska beats Kvitova she wins the group and Kvitova goes through in second. This is concrete.

If Kvitova beats Radwanska 2-1, then Kvitova wins the group and Radwanska goes through in second place. This is concrete.

If Kvitova beats Radwanska 2-0, then Kvitova wins the group and second place in the group is determined by head to head results if there is a 2 way tie and by the percentage of sets won if there is a 3 way tie. If that doesn't clear things up, then second place is determined on the percentage of games won. As there would be a 3 way tie in this scenario we forget the head to head results then.

So on with the winning set percentages. All 3 of the second place girls would be tied with a 37.5% winning set percentage. So on with the winning game percentages then. We can now conclusively rule out Zvonareva or Wozniacki. Zvonareva has a winning game percentage of 48.61% and Wozniacki has a winning game percentage of 45.33%. Wozniacki is OUT and the WTA official who tried to eliminate Zvonareva live on air is a bit of a numpty! Radwanksa currently has a winning game percentage of 50.88%. To avoid it dropping below 48.61% she has to win at least 4 games in both sets, with more than 4 games won in one of the sets. If she loses either set to 3 games or less she is out. These are the rest of the permutations:

If Kvitova wins 6-4 6-4 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.05% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.10% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.15% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.75% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.78% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-6 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 49.40% and she is THROUGH.

Looking at the permutations a little more closely it shows that Radwanska has to take at least one set to a tie break. Furthermore, there is no possible permutation where Radwanska and Zvonareva can be tied with a winning game percentage. I hope I don't have to ring Istanbul tomorrow to explain their own rules to them. :)
Even if Aga loses 7:6 7:6 her game count will be 39:44 which is 39/(39+44)=46.99% ... not enough.

StoneRose
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:04 AM
Will be tough for Aga to take a set. So Vera will probably advance. Moderately happy about that but she's really not in good form. As she's facing Vika no problem for me. Vika will win this time, if not Vera will probably have deserved it so ok.

sammy01
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:06 AM
Even if Aga loses 7:6 7:6 her game count will be 39:44 which is 39/(39+44)=46.99% ... not enough.

that percentage is correct, so if that is correct that aga would be 39:44 win/loss record of games if she loses 6-7, 6-7 tomorrow then she does indeed have to win a set.

Mistress of Evil
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:09 AM
Everything is on GOATRA's racket :bounce:

mac47
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:18 AM
Everything will always be on Petra's racquet for the next 8 years, Svetlio. If Petra doesn't beat herself, her game cannot be defeated by anyone who isn't willing to be as aggressive as she is.

kingcretos
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:20 AM
Even if Aga loses 7:6 7:6 her game count will be 39:44 which is 39/(39+44)=46.99% ... not enough.

LOL, my maths is solid and you can check it all. However, it is late at night and I was working off Radwanska having won 29 out of 57 games, not 27 out of 57 games. I was doing the more difficult maths off an initial basic error in simple addition. Ha ha ha. I just read through the thread and saw people either not understanding or getting the principle of it wrong (e.g. plus/minus games etc.). I just tried to help out. This was especially the case after hearing the live on air rubbish about Zvonareva being out. I wasn't trying to be bigheaded. At least I have a sense of humour and I fully concede my mistake. I'm a Radwanska fan anyway so I will ring Istanbul tomorrow just to confuse them. :lol:

Balltossovic
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:24 AM
LOL, my maths is solid and you can check it all. However, it is late at night and I was working off Radwanska having won 29 out of 57 games, not 27 out of 57 games. I was doing the more difficult maths off an initial basic error in simple addition. Ha ha ha. I just read through the thread and saw people either not understanding or getting the principle of it wrong. I just tried to help out. This was especially the case after hearing the live on air rubbish about Zvonareva being out. I wasn't trying to be bigheaded. At least I have a sense of humour and I fully concede my mistake. I'm a Radwanska fan anyway so I will ring Istanbul tomorrow just to confuse them. :lol:
:hug:

guichard
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:24 AM
Ok, this is my first post and I will sound like an arrogant sod, but I will try and clear things up for everyone. No one has got this correct yet.


So on with the winning set percentages. All 3 of the second :

If Kvitova wins 6-4 6-4 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.05% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.10% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-5 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.15% and she is OUT.
If Kvitova wins 6-4 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.75% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-5 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 48.78% and she is THROUGH.
If Kvitova wins 7-6 7-6 Radwanska's winning game percentage drops to 49.40% and she is THROUGH.



Your math are off the mark. Just few off them
If Kvitova wins 6-4 6-4, Radwanska 35 games won -42 games lost 45%

Kvitova wins 6-4 7-6, Radwanska 37 g w-43 g l 46,25%

Kvitova wins 7-5 7-6, Radwanska 38 g w -44 g l 46, 34%


Zvonareva 35 games won -37 games lost 48,6%



Just so you know, the score is not that" important", it is more a combination of games won/lost. For ex 6-4 6-0 or 6-2 6-2 or 6-3 6-1

guichard
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:30 AM
Hey guys, I really didn't understand the schedule this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in previous years, didn't the two winners on the first day, and two losers play each other?

Example: Caro beat Aga day one. Petra beat Vera day one. Should yesterday's matches have been played between Vera and Aga, and Petra and Caro.
I thought they used to do this so no one would have a -2 on day two. That way everyone would have a win and a loss. Did this change, and when?
No, the men do this not the women (at least the last few years)

kingcretos
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:35 AM
Just so you know, the score is not that" important", it is more a combination of games won/lost. For ex 6-4 6-0 or 6-2 6-2 or 6-3 6-1

I did factor in the permutations on combinations. Aside from that, I have acknowledged my error and am sorry for wasting your time. :(

Can't see Radwanska getting a set for the record. Now I will look like an even bigger wally tomorrow after she cruises to a 2-0 win. :)

StoneRose
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:44 AM
Everything will always be on Petra's racquet for the next 8 years, Svetlio. If Petra doesn't beat herself, her game cannot be defeated by anyone who isn't willing to be as aggressive as she is. I'm really beginning to hate that quote "on her racket", "not on her racket". It has been said about Hantuchova often.... "It was on her racket", but what did it bring her? Petra is a much better player of course but still, she can miss a lot of balls too in a match and if she loses it it seems kind of lame to come again with "pity, it was on er racket".

rafaelkafka
Oct 28th, 2011, 02:59 AM
Is that a preemptive approach? So if Radwanska wins you'll say it's because Kvitova threw the match?

Kvitova can't be beaten with her brains in the proper place. She is extremely powerful.

rafaelkafka
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:03 AM
I'm really beginning to hate that quote "on her racket", "not on her racket". It has been said about Hantuchova often.... "It was on her racket", but what did it bring her? Petra is a much better player of course but still, she can miss a lot of balls too in a match and if she loses it it seems kind of lame to come again with "pity, it was on er racket".

If you win with more UE's from your opponent than winners from you, you have zero merit. It is so simple.

When that happens you don't win, your opponent lose to himself.

Hurley
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:30 AM
Hey guys, I really didn't understand the schedule this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in previous years, didn't the two winners on the first day, and two losers play each other?

Example: Caro beat Aga day one. Petra beat Vera day one. Should yesterday's matches have been played between Vera and Aga, and Petra and Caro.
I thought they used to do this so no one would have a -2 on day two. That way everyone would have a win and a loss. Did this change, and when?

No, the men do this not the women (at least the last few years)

This. The WTA hasn't cared about doing this for years and years.

Balltossovic
Oct 28th, 2011, 03:32 AM
Thanks guys. I haven't watched YEC since 07, so I wasn't sure. I liked the old system better...

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 28th, 2011, 04:06 AM
If you win with more UE's from your opponent than winners from you, you have zero merit. It is so simple.

When that happens you don't win, your opponent lose to himself.

If that opponent keeps losing to himself, his/her professional player status has zero merit.

bostero
Oct 28th, 2011, 04:17 AM
You are corrected for the most parts. The bold part however needs some corrections. Caro will always be 4th regardless what happens as her win/ lost games is at -7 now, while Vera's at -2, Aga's at -3. So any 2-0 wins from Petra will make Vera finishes at 2nd because it means Aga's -3 will get even more negative, aka. Vera advances. :)

Thanks for your response. :)

However, I think this too is slightly incorrect!

If Aga loses 6-4, 6-4, her games win % would stay just above Caro's at 45.45% (with Caro at 45.33%).

If Aga loses 6-4, 6-3 or any other worse scorelines, her games win % will fall under Caro's and Aga will finish 4th in the group.

So it's true that Aga can still finish anywhere from 1st-4th.....I think. :lol:

pav
Oct 28th, 2011, 05:38 AM
I rung up Petra's management and offered $50.00 if Petra won in two, and just as they hung up on me I could here some sort of yapping in the room!

dragonflies
Oct 28th, 2011, 05:40 AM
Thanks for your response. :)

However, I think this too is slightly incorrect!

If Aga loses 6-4, 6-4, her games win % would stay just above Caro's at 45.45% (with Caro at 45.33%).

If Aga loses 6-4, 6-3 or any other worse scorelines, her games win % will fall under Caro's and Aga will finish 4th in the group.

So it's true that Aga can still finish anywhere from 1st-4th.....I think. :lol:




You are right :lol:




The truth is Caro should be written as " already been out", regardless any results. Aga can obviously be ranked 4th, if she not only fails to win a set ( lose 0/2), but somehow managed to get beat up, then she definitely will be ranked last in the group. You were correct to say Aga could be ranked last above Aga if Aga managed to suck up. However, I thought it doesn't matter whether ranked 3th or 4th. It is not important as you are out anyway. We were focus on which of those 2 grils can get into the semis. Perhaps you are on a bet with someone about that then maybe it's matter. :)



Most other popular sports like soccer, volleyball, etc... with similar formats in counting game won/ lost when it came to the tight situations, always counted on the plus/ minus games win/ lost, instead of percentage. The calculations are simple and still accurate in term of separating their performances. It's the first time I saw they do this way. I did not read the rules in this case, hence those calculations. However, the results is pretty similar as both scenariors shows Aga has to win a set in this case to get ahead of Vera.

Apoleb
Oct 28th, 2011, 05:52 AM
Maybe we should make a "Save Radwanska fund" where all the money goes to Petra on the condition she tanks a set.

bostero
Oct 28th, 2011, 06:29 AM
You are right :lol:




The truth is Caro should be written as " already been out", regardless any results. Aga can obviously be ranked 4th, if she not only fails to win a set ( lose 0/2), but somehow managed to get beat up, then she definitely will be ranked last in the group. You were correct to say Aga could be ranked last above Aga if Aga managed to suck up. However, I thought it doesn't matter whether ranked 3th or 4th. It is not important as you are out anyway. We were focus on which of those 2 grils can get into the semis. Perhaps you are on a bet with someone about that then maybe it's matter. :)



Most other popular sports like soccer, volleyball, etc... with similar formats in counting game won/ lost when it came to the tight situations, always counted on the plus/ minus games win/ lost, instead of percentage. The calculations are simple and still accurate in term of separating their performances. It's the first time I saw they do this way. I did not read the rules in this case, hence those calculations. However, the results is pretty similar as both scenariors shows Aga has to win a set in this case to get ahead of Vera.

You are completely right that finishing 3rd or 4th is of no consequence. However, the reason I was curious to know exactly how the group might break down is because a friend and I had a bet predicting how the tournament would pan out, and all our picks were the same, the only difference was I had Vera 3rd in group and Aga 4th, and he had the opposite.

So to us it still matters how this entire group ends! :lol: I'm in slightly the better position, since Vera can still finish 3rd or Aga can still finish 4th. My friend only has Aga to finish 3rd, since Vera cannot finish 4th.

I have no idea how it will all work out if there is a retirement - so I hope that doesn't happen. :D

twinbridge
Oct 28th, 2011, 09:30 AM
You are completely right that finishing 3rd or 4th is of no consequence. However, the reason I was curious to know exactly how the group might break down is because a friend and I had a bet predicting how the tournament would pan out, and all our picks were the same, the only difference was I had Vera 3rd in group and Aga 4th, and he had the opposite.

So to us it still matters how this entire group ends! :lol: I'm in slightly the better position, since Vera can still finish 3rd or Aga can still finish 4th. My friend only has Aga to finish 3rd, since Vera cannot finish 4th.

I have no idea how it will all work out if there is a retirement - so I hope that doesn't happen. :D

According to the tournament rule, the 3rd standing players in the two groups in RR are required to stay at Istanbul and prepare to play if one of the two qualifier fails to play in the Semi-Final. So even 3rd standing playing could have a chance to play in Semi-final when the qualifier withdraws, though it was very unlikely.

KapitalL
Oct 28th, 2011, 09:35 AM
If you win with more UE's from your opponent than winners from you, you have zero merit. It is so simple.

When that happens you don't win, your opponent lose to himself.

I hope you're being sarcastic here or else :help:

I mean people can generally appreciate good defense in every other sport, but in tennis you're a lame pusher with no game and everybody either beats you or they choke :facepalm:

Lets make all the players 6 foot tall, powerfull as hell and make them go for winners of every shot, see what fun that will be,..we can even make the courts bigger so they have more to aim for, hell, lets the remove the net from the courts, its only getting in the way of big winners anyways :help:

And that's what tennis is all about right? Power and winners winners winners

GoDominique
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:27 AM
You guys do not need to calculate percentages. +/- games won/lost is sufficient in the vast majority of cases.
It's difficult to think up a situation where you get different results.

bbjpa
Oct 28th, 2011, 10:38 AM
WTA will find a way to get Pushniacki advance to SF , they will excavate rule #455a5-e5F : if 3 players are tied in victory , the highest ranked player is qualified :lol:

Adrian.
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:07 AM
If aga wins a set, can she retire then? :unsure:

luppy55
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:44 AM
If aga wins a set, can she retire then? :unsure:

or just play a game and retire then, she would have a better set percentage then bepa and caro :confused:

Meelis
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:50 AM
If aga wins a set, can she retire then? :unsure:

or just play a game and retire then, she would have a better set percentage then bepa and caro :confused:

Retirements count as straight set losses, I believe.

Juju Nostalgique
Oct 28th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Pushniacki OUT!!! :drool: :happy:

That's what matters most! :hah:

Adrian.
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:04 PM
Retirements count as straight set losses, I believe.

you believe or are you sure? :oh::hehehe:

Geertvg
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:18 PM
If you retire you're out of the competition.

Meelis
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:19 PM
you believe or are you sure? :oh::hehehe:

If you retire you're out of the competition.

3. Default or Retirement

In applying the tie-breaking procedures, a conduct default or retirement
shall count as a straight-set win or loss. However, games won or lost
in matches with a defaulting or retiring player shall not be counted in
the application of the percentage of games won method.

A player who retires during the Round Robin because of illness or injury
may continue in the competition if it is approved by the Tournament
Physician.

Adrian.
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:21 PM
3. Default or Retirement

In applying the tie-breaking procedures, a conduct default or retirement
shall count as a straight-set win or loss. However, games won or lost
in matches with a defaulting or retiring player shall not be counted in
the application of the percentage of games won method.

A player who retires during the Round Robin because of illness or injury
may continue in the competition if it is approved by the Tournament
Physician.

yeah, that's what I thought, if you have stomach problems ond Day 1, why shouldn't you be allowed to play on Day 2 if you feel better :shrug:
Ok, so Aga shouldn't retire, but Kvitova could :oh:
but I think they aren't such good friends to do so :p :devil:

Malva
Oct 28th, 2011, 12:25 PM
I mean people can generally appreciate good defense in every other sport, but in tennis you're a lame pusher with no game and everybody either beats you or they choke :facepalm:

Lets make all the players 6 foot tall, powerfull as hell and make them go for winners of every shot, see what fun that will be,..we can even make the courts bigger so they have more to aim for, hell, lets the remove the net from the courts, its only getting in the way of big winners anyways :help:

And that's what tennis is all about right? Power and winners winners winners

For a simpleton -- yes.