World Tour Finals - Would Wildcards Work?

Another year and same old same old.

The top 4 un-moved. Little change in the perils below. The WTF is coming up and I am now feeling meh. I think the formula is too rigid and for me it isn't working anymore. Though I did think maybe something might work that might not just spice things up, but could also lend massive experience points to future champions of the game.

I think that the WTF should introduce wildcards. I think the top 6 should qualify. I think the ATP should then reward 2 up and coming players or those who have demonstrated a rich vein of form. I think if a Raonic or a Cilic for example were exposed to the top 4 in such a format, maybe just maybe they could show their metal. Let's look at those who have qualified:

Djokovic
Federer
Murray
Nadal - Withdrawn
Ferrer
Berdych
Del Potro
Tsonga/Monaco/Isner/Tipsarevic

Now looking at that list could I see Ferrer winning it? Nope. Berdych? Hmmm maybe. Tsonga/Monaco/Isner/Tipsarevic? No chance.

I think for things to remain fresh, maybe the WTF and ATP may look at wildcards which could be the catalyst for future champions.

Good idea, I like the thought of widening entrance to WTF.

I'd like to see the round robin groups expanded...so its 4 groups of 4 player.
Within the 16 top players would be players who did best at the slams...best at the Masters...and perhaps 1-2 spots for players who have improved their ranking the most in the top 100 or 50.

I'd also like to see the guys play doubles against each other too...but thats asking too much and conflicts with the Doubles WTF event.

I was ummming and errrrring over whether to expand the field. Would that move not be seen as more commercially motivated?

I agree if the field was expanded, the wildcards could introduced say 1 to each group.

I feel the WTF could serve a bigger purpose bar the top 8 of the world. I understand we all want to see the best players, but I do think some dangerous players lurk just outside the top 12 who could spice things up.

Could be seen that way, but perhaps is simply more inclusive...after all they have 32 seeds at slams so 16 is far short of that.

At present it feels like a huge bonus payment for the top 8 players. Yes a WC could be out into each of the 4 groups...then rather than have 2 players go through only the top player goes into the semis. It would give a great chance for players ranked in the 20s/30s/40s/50s.

Like I say, I'd like to see them play doubles as well (randomly allocated within reason, not pre-chosen based on who wants to play together)...maybe there is a way of their individual doubles performance counting towards who goes through to the singles finals...?

Well the doubles aspect would be a great money spinner, would the quality of the tennis match the brand of the player? It almost becomes borderline exhibition. If they really want to play doubles, I think they would throughout the year.

I think the format needs to change as it is so rigid and robotic at the moment.

At one point, and this may still be the case, if you won a slam, you got into the WTF at the expense of No 8. Anyone know for sure?

It's up to the lower-ranked players to spice things up by winning more during the season. Not up to the organisers to spice things up if the lower ranked players aren't good enough to do that.

It's up to the lower-ranked players to spice things up by winning more during the season. Not up to the organisers to spice things up if the lower ranked players aren't good enough to do that.

I disagree there.

The organisers have a duty to produce a tournament the fans want to see.

I can't see the harm in changing the current format.

Would the fans be happy to see Tsonga and Delpo replaced by, say, Goffin and Nishikori?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would the fans be happy to see Tsonga and Delpo replaced by, say, Goffin and Nishikori?

Not Tsonga or Delpo, but certainly Ferrer and Tipsarevic

JuliusHMarx wrote:At one point, and this may still be the case, if you won a slam, you got into the WTF at the expense of No 8. Anyone know for sure?

It's up to the lower-ranked players to spice things up by winning more during the season. Not up to the organisers to spice things up if the lower ranked players aren't good enough to do that.

That's still the case - see Marray/Nielsen in the doubles.

No, the problem is the absence of new talent and change. Doing this change corrupts the concept of the event.

Fix the problem, not the symptom.

In my view, there is no problem. The eight players scheduled to make it are all superb players. The top 3 speak for themselves, ferrer is a former wtf finalist, as is DP and as is Tsonga. Only the final qualifier looks a bit weaker and id still see no reason to add someone who has had a less successful year in their place. This isnt 10 years ago when some players were completely out of their depth. Didnt Federer double bagel someone one year?

Born Slippy wrote:In my view, there is no problem. The eight players scheduled to make it are all superb players. The top 3 speak for themselves, ferrer is a former wtf finalist, as is DP and as is Tsonga. Only the final qualifier looks a bit weaker and id still see no reason to add someone who has had a less successful year in their place. This isnt 10 years ago when some players were completely out of their depth. Didnt Federer double bagel someone one year?

He single-bagelled someone and had them off court in an hour last year.

Indeed...he played a blinder and Nadal was AWOL to be fair last year.

I do think the top 8 is a bit narrow given the size of the tour...but the balance is how many matches to play at the end?
They only have to play 5 matches to get 1,500 points, and all 3 setters. Seems abit too easy to me.

I would keep it as it it. It seems pretty unfair what you suggest. I could imagine Ferrer opening his mail.

"Dear David,

We regret to inform you that you are not invited to play at the world tour finals. While your ranking is 5 and Raonic's is 12, he is younger than you and you are, let's face it, a no hoper at this event. Your second serve does look a bit amateurish on this surface next to Fed's you can't deny that.

Frankly speaking if you were going to win this event you would have done it years ago. Sorry about that.

Yours sincerely.

The ATP".

lydian wrote:Indeed...he played a blinder and Nadal was AWOL to be fair last year.

I do think the top 8 is a bit narrow given the size of the tour...but the balance is how many matches to play at the end?
They only have to play 5 matches to get 1,500 points, and all 3 setters. Seems abit too easy to me.

That's an interesting sleight on it.

I think it needs a little freshen up.

What about wildcards at Slams? Young players are not exactly benefitting from it or even Masters 1000 WC's.

Posters are talking about how same old same old things are. Addressing the conditions and technology is only part of the bigger picture.

I think the points at the WTF is about right. It's slightly unfair when you think the #8 player has the opportunity to add big points while the #9 player doesn't.

A 4x4 makes it sound like each of the Top 4 gets 3 others in their group to beat and accumulate points with.

Another option is to do a DC style relegation/promotion of the second set of 8 players every year.

FIFA World Cup has groups, but very rarely does one have upsets.

IMO, changing the WTF for the sake of change may not be good idea.

Another option is to do a DC style relegation/promotion of the second set of 8 players every year.

Would that not be a step in the direction of protected rankings?

Funnily enough I've been thinking about this for a week now. I'd like to see the Top 6 for the year get in plus 2 wildcards, but if someone outside the Top 6 were to win a major (yeah right!!) they would automatically get a wildcard. On saying that, I'd prefer Tsonga/Tipsarevic over Raonic any day. Get Nishikori in!!

Exactly HB...for me I'd rather the WTF had either less points, or no points.
It isnt fair that say Tipsy can get up to 1500 points but Almagro none just by being able to enter. Lets not forget even up to 500 points is a huge chunk out of the annual total for any of the guys below 4th position.

I like the concept of a race through the year to get to the finals...but feel 8 is too few, esp. for 1500 pts. I'm not really in favour of wildcards as such, unless they are based on some kind of performance metric.

Then we have the whole issue of WTF always being played indoors when most of the annual points gained to enter are from various outdoor surfaces...

Hang on...didn't Tsonga reach the final last year? Nadal out at RR stage? There's no guarantee that the top four are going to dominate the WTF, yet people are talking like it's a cast-iron certainty. I agree with laverfan, I don't think that changing the format merely to sabotage the current stranglehold of the top 4 is going to be a good idea. If only because in a few years, there may not be four standout players at the top anymore.

And how would you decide on wildcards? For example, this year - no single player outside the top few have distinguished themselves at slams, and whilst Raonic and Nishikori have both been big movers in the rankings this year, there are others that could be considered. Including players for aesthetic reasons is even more of a minefield - Gasquet or Dolgopolov? You could debate forever, and everyone has an opinion on preferred players.

I'm not knocking the idea though. Just surprised at how many people think the format is staid?

Edit: Do agree on the points though. Should be M1000 level at best, and probably much lower.

I'm used to disagreeing with one or two of you, but not all of you at the same time

I don't understand why there seems to be this need to beat ourselves up over the percieved "meh" of today's Tennis

The reason why it's perfectly fair that Tipsy might get 1500 points and Almagro none, is that one reached the Top 8 and the other didn't

If we start making it say the Top 6 and two others, where reducing another reason for those outside the Top 10, to be that bothered after the US

The idea of the 8 best players in the world getting this special priveledge is because the achievement is, er, pretty special

I also, don't know why we need to jazz it up. Is it that bad? Granted last year was a disappointment the moment it was aparrant that 3 of the top 4 were nowhere near the fitness needed - but the previous two years were pretty good

Do you know what? I'm getting "meh" to the number of negative articles about today's Tennis

Typical!! As I write a comment saying I disagree with everyone, meanwhile someone else places one that I do agree with

And I missed Laverfan's comment that I also agree with

I'm off for a lie down, it's all getting too much

lol banbrotam

I kind of agree with a few of your points. However, I do feel the event would be great with 4 groups of 4 players...the winner from each going into the semis. Its more inclusive...only the winner from each goes through and brings the spotlight to a wider group of players.

When you say its the best 8 getting there....well yes of course. However, the narrow group of 8 means that you may have some players who were great at the start of the year but tailed off post-Wimb but still make the cut, or you have those who were great in the 2nd half of the year but didnt quite make the cut of 8. If you had the top 16 entering we might have a few more "form horses" who could make the event v.interesting.

Calm down banbro

It isn't a means of sabotaging the top 4, but merely freshening things up. Look at last year. It is almost a mirror image of the current crop aside from Fish/Del Potro. Nadal has withdrawn.

It is a case of giving the other guys a turn

Giving the other guys a turn! I can see this devolving into a welfare state debate, legendkiller

Not me, I like the current format and I don't want to see two youngsters who haven't earned the requisite points getting an honor they might not deserve and most likely they just aren't ready for that level of competition. I wouldn't mind expanding the field to 16, but at the end of the season the players really are sensitive about adding more matches. I do want to see the WTF finals go 5 again like it used to. There should be something grandslam like and different about the event than from other tournaments.

banbrotam wrote:I'm used to disagreeing with one or two of you, but not all of you at the same time

I don't understand why there seems to be this need to beat ourselves up over the percieved "meh" of today's Tennis

The reason why it's perfectly fair that Tipsy might get 1500 points and Almagro none, is that one reached the Top 8 and the other didn't

If we start making it say the Top 6 and two others, where reducing another reason for those outside the Top 10, to be that bothered after the US

The idea of the 8 best players in the world getting this special priveledge is because the achievement is, er, pretty special

I also, don't know why we need to jazz it up. Is it that bad? Granted last year was a disappointment the moment it was aparrant that 3 of the top 4 were nowhere near the fitness needed - but the previous two years were pretty good

Do you know what? I'm getting "meh" to the number of negative articles about today's Tennis

Yep, I agree with that Banbro

One aspect of an EoY WTF is that players tend to pace themselves and manage schedules, if they want to be at the WTF.

Squeezing the regular season calendar now has the side-effect of players withdrawing and being tired.

For variety, perhaps a change of surface on some kind of rotational basis could be introduced.

In the case of a 4x4, a group RR stage with one player out of that group would be 3 matches, and an SF/F would make it 5 matches, very similar to the current scenario.

The top player from such a group setup playing additional matches and the qualification for the next round could become a very involved process. Perhaps a bit more than what it already is. Federer-Del Potro in 2009 comes to mind.

I do like SoCal's 5-set suggestion, which used to be the case till 2007 (the Ferrer-Federer match).

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Another option is to do a DC style relegation/promotion of the second set of 8 players every year.

Would that not be a step in the direction of protected rankings?

Would you consider picking the next 8 in the 'race' to also become part of the WTF as another option?

banbrotam wrote:I'm used to disagreeing with one or two of you, but not all of you at the same time

I don't understand why there seems to be this need to beat ourselves up over the percieved "meh" of today's Tennis

The reason why it's perfectly fair that Tipsy might get 1500 points and Almagro none, is that one reached the Top 8 and the other didn't

If we start making it say the Top 6 and two others, where reducing another reason for those outside the Top 10, to be that bothered after the US

The idea of the 8 best players in the world getting this special priveledge is because the achievement is, er, pretty special

I also, don't know why we need to jazz it up. Is it that bad? Granted last year was a disappointment the moment it was aparrant that 3 of the top 4 were nowhere near the fitness needed - but the previous two years were pretty good

Do you know what? I'm getting "meh" to the number of negative articles about today's Tennis

Banbro I now you like being the maverick but is it ok for me to agree with you? Frankly I got pretty fed up with it and I think I made the case aggressively that Tennis today is very good and that the game is not in trouble. When people want to change a winning formula the burden of proof is on them to show the changes they advocate actually would be better than what we have. I just think that we get in this cycle of being too critical and negative.

Indeed Socal, although there are always ways to make the sport even better for the public. eg more variety
It's in a great state atm though (imo), hope this continues in the future.

BTW LF, PM 4 U.

Yes, good point Amiritia change is great but change to an improvement. If you have good situation and people want to change that through something new then they have the burden to prove that what they suggest would help more than hurt.

It's perfectly fine the way it is.

All the matches are between top players, with hardly any dead rubbers.

A field of 16 = lots of boring matches, some dead rubbers, too long, and not really just about the elite, which is what the WTF is all about.

As for the notion that it's too predictable, well perhaps we should change up the FO.. i mean that's been pretty damn predictable over the last 8 years - pretty much a one horse race. Maybe Rafa should be forced to win four sets per match and his opponent just two?

Leave it as it is.



emancipator

emancipator wrote:Maybe Rafa should be forced to win four sets per match and his opponent just two?

OK I'll accept that deal, if we move all tournaments to Monte Carlo



Amritia3ee

Amritia,

I'm sure he could manage it at MC, Rome and RG

Thought provoking article LK , yes something have to be done to encourage youngsters rise to the challange and take the game to the top 4, but I don't see wildcard will be a solution.

Btw Ferrer had the shot for the title in 2007 if not for Federer, he came to the final without a loss comfortably beating the rest of the field. Ferrer's game so badly matches with Federer that even on Fed's worst days he pulls of a win and no way Ferrer could have sighted a win against a prime Fed.

If Fed for some reason pulls of from WTF, I do fancy Ferrer as an outside contender and Murray being the favorite.

Dont know why we say top 16 would give boring matches when the World Cup has 16 teams, not 8. Indoors you may argue guys like Isner would have a better chance of getting further than indoor whipping boy Ferrer...

Socal, as you know my advocacy for tour change is based on the game is becoming more and more grinding. To the extent its blocking new talent coming through...as I always say where are the young players of tomorrow....only 1 x 20 year old in the top 100. No one under 19 within top 400. Coaching methods getting lazy due to reduced skill mix needed to cut it at the top as game has moved to a different footing. Its not about being prophecies of doom or moaning...its about wanting more variety, and finding ways of getting more variety into coaching and play styles.

Voting for the status quo right now isnt voting for that at all because current conditions will only lead to further decline of skill and variety mix. In my opinion of course...

That would be twice Valencia winner; former WTF finalist and last year's SFist Ferrer? It does frustrate me when people downplay his abilities like that. Suggesting that a guy as limited as Isner, reliant solely on his serve, would do better kind of sums it up. A court where Isner can do better than Ferrer is a bad court for tennis.

Where are the young players? Kei has won a 500 this year. Dimitrov has started to put together some impressive victories. Janowicz is closing on the top 50. Berankis is coming back to form. Tomic is class if he ever gets his head in order. Raonic is on the edge of the top 8. Kuznetsov has made massive strides this year. Saville is inside the top 400 and moving up nicely.

Wild cards defeats the whole point of the system. I'd be against that. I wouldn't be against the top 16 qualifying (in singles) though. There is enough depth in men's tennis to make that interesting. I think you'd have to add a QF match though. I wouldn't be keen on just one player going through per group. I don't see it would lead to more dead matches - the same system as currently in place over 4 groups more or less eliminates that.

I don't get Laver's point about adding the next 8 in the race, as that is just the same as extending it to 16 anyway.

Born Slippy wrote:That would be twice Valencia winner; former WTF finalist and last year's SFist Ferrer? It does frustrate me when people downplay his abilities like that. Suggesting that a guy as limited as Isner, reliant solely on his serve, would do better kind of sums it up. A court where Isner can do better than Ferrer is a bad court for tennis.

Where are the young players? Kei has won a 500 this year. Dimitrov has started to put together some impressive victories. Janowicz is closing on the top 50. Berankis is coming back to form. Tomic is class if he ever gets his head in order. Raonic is on the edge of the top 8. Kuznetsov has made massive strides this year. Saville is inside the top 400 and moving up nicely.

A wonderful post BS, absolutely we have players that are improving and ready to make a move. The whole point of the system is that it is the best of the best fighting it out for the crown.

That would be twice Valencia winner; former WTF finalist and last year's SFist Ferrer? It does frustrate me when people downplay his abilities like that. Suggesting that a guy as limited as Isner, reliant solely on his serve, would do better kind of sums it up. A court where Isner can do better than Ferrer is a bad court for tennis.

That would be Isner 2 time Winston Salem winner? A guy who took 2 sets off Nadal at RG?

It annoys me too when people downplay Isner as just a serve.

But would Isner be more competitive against this field than the 7 or 8 player that is currently featured? I don't think so, isn't that Berdych or Del PO?

Who said Isner would be more competitive than Ferrer?

I mentioned Isner...because indoors with that serve he's always going to be a handful.
The point is that we get the top 8 from an 80-90% outdoor year to play finals indoors. My point is that the top 8 would probably look different if it was based on achievements for conditions through the year similar to WTF...so why not expand entry to allow a broader set of guys to compete, not just those who have excelled on slower courts all year. I'd like to see WTF change surface from time to time...even indoor hard can be varied a lot.

Why keep it to the top 8? If a smaller field was the argument then just get the top 4 there...they're head and shoulders above the rest anyway!

Born Slippy wrote:That would be twice Valencia winner; former WTF finalist and last year's SFist Ferrer? It does frustrate me when people downplay his abilities like that. Suggesting that a guy as limited as Isner, reliant solely on his serve, would do better kind of sums it up. A court where Isner can do better than Ferrer is a bad court for tennis.

Where are the young players? Kei has won a 500 this year. Dimitrov has started to put together some impressive victories. Janowicz is closing on the top 50. Berankis is coming back to form. Tomic is class if he ever gets his head in order. Raonic is on the edge of the top 8. Kuznetsov has made massive strides this year. Saville is inside the top 400 and moving up nicely.

You lost me at Nishikori being called a young player; he's 23 in a few days, and parted completely at "Tomic is class".

The guy is a waste of time.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Who said Isner would be more competitive than Ferrer?

Could he be less of a threat?

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Who said Isner would be more competitive than Ferrer?

Could he be less of a threat?

If we separate say the top 4. When Isner plays say Federer or Murray, he struggles. For me Federer's slice is a shot that Isner is unable to negotiate round. With Murray, it is basic soft junk which brings out the UE's from Isner and also the fast tempo. Now Isner struggles with the quicker movers. Indoors against Nadal or Djokovic? Well he could put in a decent shift. They haven't played him as much on HC's.

Ferrer for me indoors, yes he won Valencia, but has he won a Masters title? I have yet to see him really step up when the moment comes.

Dolgo sadly choked away that match in Valencia being clearly the better player on court, Ferrer does what he does best...grinding out the wins. But he's no great indoor player - Valencia was pretty slow conditions.

Isner is 1-4 to Federer and 0-2 to Murray but when you look at the match scores they are very close matches...tiebreaks in many of the sets...and some TB final sets. Given he's still improving you have to say he's a threat anywhere indoors...much more than say Monaco or Ferrer. In Valencia he lost to talented upcomer Goffin, no harm in that.

B_S...I agree with BB comments. Come on Kei isnt young-young...Tomic is going backwards at a fast rate of knots...he doesnt have it upstairs. He'll only breakthrough once better players have gone out to pasture. Similarly Dimitrov is bouncing around #50 level and more obsessed with playing, and even looking, like Federer than winning alot of matches in a row. Yes there are pockets of ability but no-one is really breaking through with a talent that makes you sit back and go..."yeah, this guy is going to be the next multi slam winner soon".

Anyway...WTF is basically 4+the other 4...why not make it 4+a broader 12...

I agree lydian. Dolgo was in control of that match and froze. Dolgo was 100% points won on first serve after 2 sets.

I wouldn't call Tomic class!