Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Admin
Joined
·
66,808 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you have any ideas about a rule or several rules in TT that you want changed, then just post them in here and we will look at them, together, at the end of the season, in a few weeks.
There will be polls about several decisions for sure, some things which were discussed a few times over the last years won't be discussed again this year.

Nothing will be done before the end of the season (unless there is a truly exceptional circumstance), this thread is more a place to write down an idea you have that you might forget about later.

Feel free to make suggestions and feel free to give us a feedback in the thread as well about the ideas coming up here, it will make it easier for the board to see if ideas/suggestions are popular or not or if a poll makes sense or if it is already clear that a rule change will happen or not!

But please behave, no off topic talk, fights etc., stay on topic, dicuss rules only and exchange opinions, no drama needed here!


Post #2 will be updated every once in a while with a summary about discussed topics/options
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
Rule change suggestion concerning the minimum number of commitments

Now: Events which have less than 16/8 players/teams at Saturday 6pm CET/CEST (one day before the final deadline) will be cancelled and the players from the cancelled event will be automatically transferred to another ITF tournament in the same week. (Managers should inform the board about it in this case)

Proposal: If a tournament has between 12 and 16 players committed on Saturday 6pm CET/CEST (one day before the final deadline), and there is another ITF on the same week with much more players, the last players who committed on this other ITF should automatically be moved to the ITF with less players to make the tournament happen.

Example 1:

ITF W80 Sao Paulo has 27 committed players in singles
ITF W25 Rio de Janeiro has 13 committed players in singles

Result: the last 3 players who committed in Sao Paulo should be moved to Rio de Janeiro, which would have 16 players and wouldn't be cancelled.

Example 2:

ITF W80 Sao Paulo has 27 committed players in singles
ITF W25 Rio de Janeiro has 11 committed players in singles

Result: Rio de Janeiro should be cancelled and the 11 players should be moved to Sao Paulo.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
about Draw sizes

Now: Tournaments should have a draw which has the same size as the real one. Qualifying draws should have room for 16 players in weeks with 4 TT tournaments.
PM and P5 tournaments obviously have bigger draws, specific rules should be decided by the board members.


Proposal: TT draws should have a determined draw size for each Category of WTA tournaments, even if it's not the same as the real ones.

Grand Slams/Indian Wells/Miami - 128/64 + 64/32
PM/P5 - 64/32 + 32/16
PR/INT/ITF - 32/16 + 16/8


I don't know if this was discussed in previous years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,577 Posts
give an ISR even if both players picked the correct winner but different SR, if the losing WTA player retires after winning a set

example from the BLINKOVA SORRIBES match in Guangzhou

SAISAI-GOAT vs Michael!
BLINKOVA 2-1 vs BLINKOVA 2-0

actual result BLINKOVA 26 61 41 ret

CURRENT RULE - goes to TB

PROPOSED NEW RULE - SAISAI-GOAT receives ISR for the match (as would have received ISR or SR if match was completed)

for me, this is a natural step after the new ISR rule that was adopted for 2019
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,406 Posts
Rule change suggestion concerning the minimum number of commitments

Now: Events which have less than 16/8 players/teams at Saturday 6pm CET/CEST (one day before the final deadline) will be cancelled and the players from the cancelled event will be automatically transferred to another ITF tournament in the same week. (Managers should inform the board about it in this case)

Proposal: If a tournament has between 12 and 16 players committed on Saturday 6pm CET/CEST (one day before the final deadline), and there is another ITF on the same week with much more players, the last players who committed on this other ITF should automatically be moved to the ITF with less players to make the tournament happen.

Example 1:

ITF W80 Sao Paulo has 27 committed players in singles
ITF W25 Rio de Janeiro has 13 committed players in singles

Result: the last 3 players who committed in Sao Paulo should be moved to Rio de Janeiro, which would have 16 players and wouldn't be cancelled.

Example 2:

ITF W80 Sao Paulo has 27 committed players in singles
ITF W25 Rio de Janeiro has 11 committed players in singles

Result: Rio de Janeiro should be cancelled and the 11 players should be moved to Sao Paulo.
I think this is not a good idea.

For example, if my partner plays in Sao Paulo you can't force me to go to Rio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,965 Posts
about Draw sizes

Now: Tournaments should have a draw which has the same size as the real one. Qualifying draws should have room for 16 players in weeks with 4 TT tournaments.
PM and P5 tournaments obviously have bigger draws, specific rules should be decided by the board members.


Proposal: TT draws should have a determined draw size for each Category of WTA tournaments, even if it's not the same as the real ones.

Grand Slams/Indian Wells/Miami - 128/64 + 64/32
PM/P5 - 64/32 + 32/16
PR/INT/ITF - 32/16 + 16/8


I don't know if this was discussed in previous years.
I think this is a great idea and I would even expand the proposal. I would suggest that in a week with only 2 INT Tournaments, that one of those has a draw of 64 players to let more players play in WTA tournaments.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
I think this is not a good idea.

For example, if my partner plays in Sao Paulo you can't force me to go to Rio.
If your partner would commit before the first deadline, most probably he wouldn't be "one of the three" to be moved, since the proposal is to move the last players who commit.

Or maybe we could change the proposal to "the last players who still don't have a doubles partner".

The idea of this rule is that we don't have 13 or so pissed players who committed on time because of 3 spots remaining. Also, this shouldn't happen often because if this situation happens one time, the Board surely will reduce the number of tournaments per week.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
I think this is a great idea and I would even expand the proposal. I would suggest that in a week with only 2 INT Tournaments, that one of those has a draw of 64 players to let more players play in WTA tournaments.
I don't agree with your suggestion.
This is why: by doing that, expanding a INT draw to 64, we would start to make exceptions in all cases, like this year, the week of Premier DOHA, which was the only WTA on that week, one would say to make it a 64 MD singles.
Also, with the lack of managers we're having, a INT tournament with 64 players in MD would be too much. The idea is to have a pattern in TT in terms of draw size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,577 Posts
I don't agree with your suggestion.
This is why: by doing that, expanding a INT draw to 64, we would start to make exceptions in all cases, like this year, the week of Premier DOHA, which was the only WTA on that week, one would say to make it a 64 MD singles.
Also, with the lack of managers we're having, a INT tournament with 64 players in MD would be too much. The idea is to have a pattern in TT in terms of draw size.
exactly, I don't agree with that at all :hysteric:

in general, WTA tournaments with 32 draw don't provide enough matches to support a TT tournament with 64 draw

I believe the current system in which the TT draw mirrors the WTA draw size is the best and this SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED

it should not be one size fits all for a tournament category because you will have some exceptions like Charleston P470 having a larger WTA draw than a typical P470, so TT Charleston should also have a larger draw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Change the registration rule in 2 tournaments with the obligation to leave by Tuesday. Increase the timeframe to choose between 2 tournaments or limit sign-up to one tournament, such as the Men's TT. Following the current rule I will withdraw from the game (of course that makes no difference to the game, it's just my personal opinion)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,060 Posts
Never understood why in doubles (or singles for that matter), I can't be rewarded an ISR if my opponents picked the right winner. Example:

Actual Result - Barty 64 67 63

Singles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64

Doubles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
Player B: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64
Player D: OSAKA 64 64

Why can't I be rewarded for giving a set to Barty? But if my opponents picked Osaka, I can? That's so odd.

My proposal - change the ISR nonsense to # sets to the winner. I'm sure it's been voted on in the past, but I don't pay as close attention to TF so apologies in advance if this has already been voted on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,060 Posts
I think this is not a good idea.

For example, if my partner plays in Sao Paulo you can't force me to go to Rio.
Agree.

Also, some players generally pick tournaments based on their time zone. I know I prefer to stay away from the Americas since the OOP sometimes isn't posted until after I go to bed and there's always that chance I sleep through the deadline. :lol: I know that's something so minor, but under this suggestion I may be moved from a European or Asian ITF to go to play in an American one despite the fact I purposely didn't commit there.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
74,084 Posts
Change the registration rule in 2 tournaments with the obligation to leave by Tuesday. Increase the timeframe to choose between 2 tournaments or limit sign-up to one tournament, such as the Men's TT. Following the current rule I will withdraw from the game (of course that makes no difference to the game, it's just my personal opinion)
I remember back in those MTF days on one of my very early managing of a TT event when I made a big mistake in missing your commitment (and then of course everyone sent as always happens in that situation) and it caused you to have to miss an event but you were so kind and understanding about it to a then fairly newbie manager - I hope you think again.
 

·
Admin
Joined
·
66,808 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Never understood why in doubles (or singles for that matter), I can't be rewarded an ISR if my opponents picked the right winner. Example:

Actual Result - Barty 64 67 63

Singles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64

Doubles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
Player B: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64
Player D: OSAKA 64 64

Why can't I be rewarded for giving a set to Barty? But if my opponents picked Osaka, I can? That's so odd.

My proposal - change the ISR nonsense to # sets to the winner. I'm sure it's been voted on in the past, but I don't pay as close attention to TF so apologies in advance if this has already been voted on.
https://www.tennisforum.com/643-tennis-tipping/1325937-should-all-incorrect-2-1-srs-counted.html

we just had a poll about this last year and asked people if they want to have the same rule as on MTF (counting all ISRs/sets to the winner) and they voted against it, so we won't have another poll for this this year but that will be something which we will have a poll again at some time for sure.

And of course, if tons of people would like that idea now suddenly then we could also have a poll again immediately but usually it does not make much sense to have the same polls all over again every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,577 Posts
Never understood why in doubles (or singles for that matter), I can't be rewarded an ISR if my opponents picked the right winner. Example:

Actual Result - Barty 64 67 63

Singles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64


Why can't I be rewarded for giving a set to Barty? But if my opponents picked Osaka, I can? That's so odd.
there are 4 possible picks:

BARTY 2-0 >>> RIGHT WINNER = 2ND BEST PICK
BARTY 2-1 >>> ACTUAL = BEST PICK
OSAKA 2-1 >>> GAVE SET TO WINNER = 3RD BEST PICK
OSAKA 2-0 >>> WORST PICK

you are rewarded for picking OSAKA 2-1 (giving set to BARTY) if your opponent picked OSAKA 2-0, because you made a better pick (3RD BEST) than them (4TH BEST)

I know MTF does it a different way, but it makes sense to me why you would not be rewarded for the 3RD BEST PICK if your opponent had BEST PICK OR 2ND BEST PICK :shrug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMT360

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,406 Posts
Alternates/Lucky Losers:

If someone's opponent doesn't send his/her picks, the opponent gets a walkover.
If there's ALT/LL available, then this ALT/LL replaces the opponent who didn't send his/her picks.
LL1/ALT1 replaces opponent of the lowest placed player of the Entry List in the draw.
LL4/ALT4 ( if there are 4 people on the list, for example) replaces opponent of the highest placed player of the Entry List in the draw.
The bold part should be:

"LL1/ALT1 replaces opponent of the lowest ranked player in the draw"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,406 Posts
Never understood why in doubles (or singles for that matter), I can't be rewarded an ISR if my opponents picked the right winner. Example:

Actual Result - Barty 64 67 63

Singles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64

Doubles:
Player A: BARTY 64 64
Player B: BARTY 64 64
vs.
BMT360: OSAKA 64 46 64
Player D: OSAKA 64 64

Why can't I be rewarded for giving a set to Barty? But if my opponents picked Osaka, I can? That's so odd.

My proposal - change the ISR nonsense to # sets to the winner. I'm sure it's been voted on in the past, but I don't pay as close attention to TF so apologies in advance if this has already been voted on.
Agree.

We have been trying to change that rule for years, but unfortunately people here don't want change :frown2:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
The bold part should be:

"LL1/ALT1 replaces opponent of the lowest ranked player in the draw"
So you think it should be one ranking for Entry List and draw, and another for LL placements?
If so, it would be a bit more complicated for managing! Using the same rankings for EL, draws and LL placement is better, IMO.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,656 Posts
Agree.

Also, some players generally pick tournaments based on their time zone. I know I prefer to stay away from the Americas since the OOP sometimes isn't posted until after I go to bed and there's always that chance I sleep through the deadline. :lol: I know that's something so minor, but under this suggestion I may be moved from a European or Asian ITF to go to play in an American one despite the fact I purposely didn't commit there.
What if you are a lower ranked player in a letter "D" tournament on that week and there aren't enough players? You would be forced to move to another tournament the same way.
As I said, the idea of this rule is try to impact as less players possible.

Also, it is highly unlikely that players who commit before the first deadline would be impacted.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top