07-08-2022, 07:26 AM
This is an issue that's currently affecting tennis - however, it could theoretically apply to any sports tournament with a knock-out structure, so it's still worth reading if you're not a tennis fan .
In the quarter-finals of Wimbledon 2022, an injured Rafael Nadal battled past Taylor Fritz, to make it into the semi-finals. However, Nadal then found that his injury was too severe to allow him continue - and therefore, he pulled out of the tournament. This means that Nick Kyrgios, who would have been Rafael Nadal's semi-final opponent, automatically advances to the final without having to play a semi-final.
Now, if a player withdraws before the tournament, their place is taken by a 'Lucky Loser' (i.e. a randomly-picked loser from the final round of the qualifying). Thus, some have suggested that 'Lucky Losers' should also exist when a player withdraws past the first round - which, in this case, means Fritz would be let back in to play a semi-final against Kyrgios. Fritz himself has dismissed this talk, stating that if he couldn't beat an injured Nadal, then he doesn't deserve to be in the semi-finals - but, that hasn't stopped the discussion.
So, should Fritz be allowed back in? Looking at this situation, there are several pros and cons:
Pros
Cons
Myself, I'm leaning towards the 'No' side of this, since the concept of "Lucky Losers past the first round" doesn't fit in philosophically with how I think about tournaments. My view is that, as soon as a player wins a match, they're officially already in the next round, i.e. for them, the semi-final stage 'starts' the moment their quarter-final match ends. Likewise, whenever a player loses a match, I consider them to be out of the tournament, with no further role to play in it, regardless of what happens with the player who just knocked them out. On the other hand, I'm fine with 'Lucky Losers' in the first round, because I consider the qualifying tournament and the main tournament to be two separate tournaments (and thus, the "already in the next round" and "already out of the tournament" arguments do not apply).
Anyway, what are your thoughts?
In the quarter-finals of Wimbledon 2022, an injured Rafael Nadal battled past Taylor Fritz, to make it into the semi-finals. However, Nadal then found that his injury was too severe to allow him continue - and therefore, he pulled out of the tournament. This means that Nick Kyrgios, who would have been Rafael Nadal's semi-final opponent, automatically advances to the final without having to play a semi-final.
Now, if a player withdraws before the tournament, their place is taken by a 'Lucky Loser' (i.e. a randomly-picked loser from the final round of the qualifying). Thus, some have suggested that 'Lucky Losers' should also exist when a player withdraws past the first round - which, in this case, means Fritz would be let back in to play a semi-final against Kyrgios. Fritz himself has dismissed this talk, stating that if he couldn't beat an injured Nadal, then he doesn't deserve to be in the semi-finals - but, that hasn't stopped the discussion.
So, should Fritz be allowed back in? Looking at this situation, there are several pros and cons:
Pros
- The Fritz-Nadal match still produces a semi-finalist (in this case, Fritz) - which is an improvement over the current situation, in which neither player advances, and the entire match was essentially for nothing.
- Kyrgios still has to play a semi-final, and thus doesn't get the unfair advantage of being able to save all his energy for the final.
- Fans, sponsors, and TV stations get the match that they paid for - and nobody needs to be refunded.
Cons
- It might not be logistically feasible. Once a player is out of the tournament, they'll want to start preparing for the next one: they might not want to stick around for a couple of days, on the off-chance that the player who just beat them will withdraw.
- Suppose Fritz were to win the tournament. He would do so despite having lost a match, and despite the presence of an undefeated player (namely Nadal). To make matters worse, the undefeated Nadal was the player who beat Fritz, suggesting that Nadal was the 'true' champion (and at the very least, Fritz's title would have to have an asterisk next to it).
- Suppose one of the top players loses in the early rounds to a low-ranked underdog. Then, there's a risk that this player could be bribed or pressured to withdraw, in order to let the top player back in. That's an ugly scenario, and there would need to be sufficient safeguards to prevent that.
Myself, I'm leaning towards the 'No' side of this, since the concept of "Lucky Losers past the first round" doesn't fit in philosophically with how I think about tournaments. My view is that, as soon as a player wins a match, they're officially already in the next round, i.e. for them, the semi-final stage 'starts' the moment their quarter-final match ends. Likewise, whenever a player loses a match, I consider them to be out of the tournament, with no further role to play in it, regardless of what happens with the player who just knocked them out. On the other hand, I'm fine with 'Lucky Losers' in the first round, because I consider the qualifying tournament and the main tournament to be two separate tournaments (and thus, the "already in the next round" and "already out of the tournament" arguments do not apply).
Anyway, what are your thoughts?
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference
Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights.
(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Detective Osprey for the sig!)
My Items