Round Robin tactics! Would players be tempted to use them?

Who can work out the following? By beating Berdych by the narrowest margin, Djoko could be tempted to rid of Berdych in the RR stage once and for all to avoid any chance of meeting him again in the final. How? Losing to Ferrer woudl probably give Ferrer the best chance to qualify while Berdych might not go through despite beating his remaining 2 opponents.

I am not saying this is Djoko's intention, or any other player for that matter, but if it were, could it be done on paper?

If Federer could rid of Djoko and Nadal in RR, by losing to a player he would typically not, woudl probably be tempted...consciously...or unconsciously.

It would have to be an asbolute certainty with nothing to lose for the defeat - maybe then he'd decide to play at 70% and see what happened.

I am sure Nadal woudl be ready to risk it to rid of Djoko had they been in the same group!

Tenez wrote:Who can work out the following? By beating Berdych by the narrowest margin, Djoko could be tempted to rid of Berdych in the RR stage once and for all to avoid any chance of meeting him again in the final. How? Losing to Ferrer woudl probably give Ferrer the best chance to qualify while Berdych might not go through despite beating his remaining 2 opponents.

I am not saying this is Djoko's intention, or any other player for that matter, but if it were, could it be done on paper?

If Federer could rid of Djoko and Nadal in RR, by losing to a player he would typically not, woudl probably be tempted...consciously...or unconsciously.

Sly and cheeky from you Tenez....unless you have completely forgotten about the THIRD match.

Despite the third match, you could in theory give Ferrer the best chance. Especially since Murray is going to be out or down.

Should Djoko lose to Ferrer in 2.
Djoko to win limping Murray in 2 (same for Berdych)
If Berdych wins Ferrer in 2, he woudl still have lost one more set than Ferrer so when it comes to Berdych Djoko, the winner of those 2 goes through....correct?

Tenez wrote:Despite the third match, you could in theory give Ferrer the best chance. Especially since Murray is going to be out or down.

Should Djoko lose to Ferrer in 2.
Djoko to win limping Murray in 2 (same for Berdych)
If Berdych wins Ferrer in 2, he woudl still have lost one more set than Ferrer so when it comes to Berdych Djoko, the winner of those 2 goes through....correct?

There's no way Nole will be fiddling with RR esp. after the 2009 scenario where he bagged two wins and still didn't qualify for the semis .

Tenez wrote:Despite the third match, you could in theory give Ferrer the best chance. Especially since Murray is going to be out or down.

Should Djoko lose to Ferrer in 2.
Djoko to win limping Murray in 2 (same for Berdych)
If Berdych wins Ferrer in 2, he woudl still have lost one more set than Ferrer so when it comes to Berdych Djoko, the winner of those 2 goes through....correct?

I think it could only possibly happen in the third match - trying to work out the percentages for the 2nd match is crazy. What if you eat something funny and have a stomach cramp 3-4 hours before the 3rd match so that you are fighting for your life?

As I say, only if there's no downside would a player even contemplate such a thing.

A question that's always been lingering in my mind:

did Federer deliberately lost to Delpo in 2009 to stuff Murray for that match in WTF in shanghai the year before...remember the one where they had to use Brains to work out who was going to go to the semis....

All right then.

I remember a couple of years ago, the situation occured with Federer having the key to Murray's dismissal in that 3rd round. He was beaten by Delpo and Murray lost over Delpo by one single game...if my memory serves me well.

noleisthebest wrote:A question that's always been tempting my mind:

did Federer deliberately lost to Delpo in 2009 to stuff Murray for that match in WTF in shanghai the year before...remember the one where they had to use Brains to work out who was goint to go to the semis....

There you go. I tend to think it was pure luck..but at the same time, I remember Federer saying he knew while playing that it coudl affect Murray though he denied knowing the right number of games....

Tenez wrote:All right then.

I remember a couple of years ago, the situation occured with Federer having the key to Murray's dismissal in that 3rd round. He was beaten by Delpo and Murray lost over Delpo by one single game...if my memory serves me well.

That was a hell of a year - every single match in the Murray/Fed/Del Boy group went to 3 sets, even against group whipping boy Verdasco, and ultimately Del Boy squeaked through on a better games won than Murray.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:A question that's always been tempting my mind:

did Federer deliberately lost to Delpo in 2009 to stuff Murray for that match in WTF in shanghai the year before...remember the one where they had to use Brains to work out who was goint to go to the semis....

There you go. I tend to think it was pure luck..but at the same time, I remember Federer saying he knew while playing that it coudl affect Murray though he denied knowing the right number of games....

I'd love to agree, but Federer is one of those players who really seems to bear grudge. He absolutely hated that loss to Murray in Shanghai. That's the only time I ever saw him receive a MTO, he had backache and Murray really went for him. I think he was trying to build psychological advantage with his H2H at the time, but, didn't Federer pay him back at AO...

Yep Barry.

NITB - I honestly don't think Federer really cared a year on about that match. I don;t even think he cares about his negative H2H v Murray.

But of course we'll never know as I doubt, it will make Fed's biography.

Tenez wrote:Yep Barry.

NITB - I honestly don't think Federer really cared a year on about that match. I don;t even think he cares about his negative H2H v Murray.

But of course we'll never know as I doubt, it will make Fed's biography.

I know Fed doesn't care about H2H, but Murray did at the time especially as it was really blown out in the media.
He also may not have cared ab out the outcome of that match, but he definitely didn't like losing it...

You don't win 16 slams liking losing!

BTW - Do you know that Federer took 2 other MTOs (at least)...from memory...can you remember them?

Question for everyone there.

Tenez wrote:I am sure Nadal woudl be ready to risk it to rid of Djoko had they been in the same group!

Ha ha! I think its a tactic most players including Federer would be tempted to use..

Tenez wrote:You don't win 16 slams liking losing!

BTW - Do you know that Federer took 2 other MTOs (at least)...from memory...can you remember them?

Question for everyone there.

Can't anyone answer this? C'mon there are plenty of Fed fans around.

Tenez wrote:You don't win 16 slams liking losing!

BTW - Do you know that Federer took 2 other MTOs (at least)...from memory...can you remember them?

Question for everyone there.

I can't say I remember it....not too bothered about them, but that one stood out.

Theyll be more wary this year... don't wanna start another riot off..

I don't have a problem with 'tactics' I mean Christ that is what the format creates. If a player has by merit earned a safe passage into the semis and can play tactically, I am afraid that is part and parcel of the game.

The experienced players would see it as mindless to try their absolute hardest if they are already through, unfortunately in 2008 Murray didn't and practically killed his chances of glory in the "5th slam" by slugging it out with Fed before capitulating to Davy.

Now Murray's out and Tipsarevic is in. If Tisarevic manages to beat Berdych and Djoko beats Ferrer, is there a scenario whereby Djoko and Tipsy might play knowing by how mucy Tipsy needs to beat Djoko for them both to qualify......

barrystar wrote:Now Murray's out and Tipsarevic is in. If Tisarevic manages to beat Berdych and Djoko beats Ferrer, is there a scenario whereby Djoko and Tipsy might play knowing by how mucy Tipsy needs to beat Djoko for them both to qualify......

I think Tipsy has good H2H against Berdych, but pretty sure he lost their last match.
will be interesting tomorrow....

Ok the other 2 MTOs Federer took are:

1 - AO05 v Safin. When he lost that semi. he had an elbow massage.
2 - one tougher to remember cause I fear noone saw that match as all eyes were on Roddick at the time: Wimbledon 2003 1/4F v Schalken (back already then)

Tenez wrote:Ok the other 2 MTOs Federer took are:

1 - AO05 v Safin. When he lost that semi. he da an elbow massage.
2 - one tougher to remember cause I fear noone saw that match as all eyes were on Roddick at the time: Wimbledon 2003 1/4F v Schalken

Good question!

OK, for extra points - can anyone list all Djokovic's MTO's? Closing date - the final next Sunday. I know it'll be a tight squeeze, but if you type fast.....

Ok as the players are not keen to play tactics...I will. I would not mind having Rafa going through actually as he would probably provide a better figt v Djoko than Tsonga and they can both kill each other in the semi, giving Federer another good chance for the final.

The problem is that when Tsonga and Berdych play Federer they play as if they have nothing to lose and can end up playing extremely well...whereas against Djoko and Nadal, they know they shoudl win and therefore puts themselves under extra pressure.

IMO Nadal approached tonights match with Federer in a different frame of mind because it was a RR than he would have if it had been the usual life or death match in a tournament.

He said in the interview before he walked on court that he would still have chances to go through to the semis even if he lost. He didn't sound like a player totally focussed on winning. I thought it the time the match wasn't going to be an epic 3 setter. He wasn't going to invest too much emotianal energy in a RR match.

Taking nothing away from Fed. He was at his brilliant best. Great fun to watch.

He wasn't going to invest too much emotianal energy in a RR match.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTE6ZHQ_aKLIP5BOuemVFy1WTGByplmAqVZW6K9H4OZtpmbP9DH

hawkeye wrote:IMO Nadal approached tonights match with Federer in a different frame of mind because it was a RR than he would have if it had been the usual life or death match in a tournament.

I said before the tournament that in fact playing Nadal in a less pressure environment, woudl help Federer produce his best tennis. I think the situation helped Federer much more than it disadvantaged Nadal who showed lots of motivation in that first set and even beginning of second set.

Interesting scenarios for tactics in the 3rd RR games.

Ferrer can lose in straight sets to eliminate Djokovic.

Djokovic can at best only qualify in 2nd (and hence a semi with Federer).

These are the scenarios for the three who can still qualify.

Ferrer: is through.
- Wins group with a win (vs Berdych) or a Djokovic win (vs Tipsarevic).
- finishes 2nd with a loss and a Djokovic loss

Berdych:
- Wins group with a win (vs Ferrer) and a Djokovic loss.
- finishes 2nd with a 2-0 win (vs Ferrer)
- finishes 2nd with a 2-1 win (vs Ferrer) and Djokovic loses a set.
- out with a loss
- out with a 2-1 win and a Djokovic 2-0 win.

Djokovic:
- finishes 2nd with a Berdych loss
- finishes 2nd with a 2-0 win and Berdych loses a set.
- out with a loss and a Berdych win
- out with a 2-0 win and a Berdych 2-0 win
- out with a 2-1 win and a Berdych 2-1 win

If the organizers want the last match to be meaningful, then it should be Ferrer vs Berdych, but this opens up the tactical 0-2 (or possible 1-2) loss for Ferrer to eliminate Djokovic.

Zaron - Well done!..and Welcome here.

Are you coming from 606?

Zaron,

thanks! we need someone organised and disciplined like you !

Tenez wrote:Zaron - Well done!..and Welcome here.

Are you coming from 606?

yeah, ages ago

noleisthebest wrote:Zaron,

thanks! we need someone organised and disciplined like you !

Thanks! The matches more interesting when one knows whats at stake, especially if you don't normally support either player.

Who do you support? What was your pseudo on 606?

Tenez wrote:Who do you support? What was your pseudo on 606?

I prefer to maintain my neutrality. But I support the one(s) who play, attacking, skillful and fast tennis.

zaron wrote:

Tenez wrote:Who do you support? What was your pseudo on 606?

I prefer to maintain my neutrality. But I support the one(s) who play, attacking, skillful and fast tennis.

I wonder who that would be then... I bet it begins with an F....













Fish

emancipator wrote:

zaron wrote:

Tenez wrote:Who do you support? What was your pseudo on 606?

I prefer to maintain my neutrality. But I support the one(s) who play, attacking, skillful and fast tennis.

I wonder who that would be then... I bet it begins with an F....













Fish

Be serious!

Ferrer it is!

Foggy Fognini.

Zaron is a Nole fan, eat your hearts out

Fish [/quote]

Be serious!

Ferrer it is![/quote]

No Fernando Verdasco.

zaron - well done with the 'who goes through scenario analysis'

Impressive stuff !!

You'd be very useful in replacing the harmless-enough-but-rather-uninformed Ms.Barker as the Beeb's studio anchor

(come to think of it ..... most people would make a good stab at replacing her.... )

Welcome aboard zaron

noleisthebest wrote:Zaron is a Nole fan, eat your hearts out

Can't be! He said attacking and skillfull tennis.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Zaron is a Nole fan, eat your hearts out

Can't be! He said attacking and skillfull tennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfJiPPsHJEQ

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Zaron is a Nole fan, eat your hearts out

Can't be! He said attacking and skillfull tennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfJiPPsHJEQ

LOL! Very good!

zaron, bit of a bone to pick with your scenarios: surely if Djokovic and Berdych both lose we have a three-way tie for second? so then it comes down to sets difference, no? something like

1. Djokovic loses 0-2, Berdych needs to win (at least) a set to go through, otherwise Tipsy does.
2. Djokovic loses 1-2, Berdych is through if he wins a set, otherwise (Ferrer wins in straight sets) it's a three-way tie with the same set difference, so it comes down to games won and lost.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:zaron, bit of a bone to pick with your scenarios: surely if Djokovic and Berdych both lose we have a three-way tie for second? so then it comes down to sets difference, no? something like

1. Djokovic loses 0-2, Berdych needs to win (at least) a set to go through, otherwise Tipsy does.
2. Djokovic loses 1-2, Berdych is through if he wins a set, otherwise (Ferrer wins in straight sets) it's a three-way tie with the same set difference, so it comes down to games won and lost.

In that scenario we would indeed have a 3-way tie for 2nd.

But, the ATP WTF has this (bizarre) rule that if players are tied on number of wins, the player with most matches (i.e., most loses goes through). So 2-1 beats 2-0, and 1-2 beats 1-1 or 1-0.

In this case, Tipsarevic (1-1) is eliminated, and Djokovic (1-2) beats Berdych (1-2) on H2H.

oh right didn't know that one zaron, in that case you're right, it just seems utterly bizarre. So as a replacement not only are you disadvantaged because you (usually) carry through a player's previous defeats, but you're also disadvantaged because he played a bit before pulling out. Strange rule.

So Tipsy is out?

Yeah, Tipsy is out .

Unless, two players get injured/food poisoning/homesick and can't continue...