The answer to my original question is that last year the BlackRock Masters had a twelve-man field. The Round Robin portion of the tournament consisted of four groups of three, and from each of these groups, two quarterfinalists emerged. The quarterfinals were followed by traditional semifinals and a final. This year the field consists of eight men, divided into two groups of four, similarly to what occurs at the Shanghai Tennis Masters Cup (to become next year's wondrously-acronymed World Tour Finals aka WTF in London). One major difference compared to the TMC is that from each group of four, one man emerges the winner - thus, Greg Rusedski, who won all three of his Round Robin matches, is already in the final; the second place will be decided today, between the two leaders in the other group, Pete Sampras and Cedric Pioline, both of whom have won two matches so far.
The net effect of the change in format (in fact, it's a return to an earlier format) is that last year the tournament consisted of nineteen singles matches (plus a special charity exhibition between Tim Henman and Stefan Edberg); this year there are only thirteen. Most afternoon sessions only contain one singles match, therefore, whereas in other years there have been two per session. Set against this, the public has three guaranteed chances to see big stars like John McEnroe and Pete Sampras (compared to two such chances in the 2007 Round Robin groups), and the entire singles schedule, with the exception of the names of the finalists, is known from Day 1, perhaps easing ticket-buying decisions, given that some seats are available throughout the week.
Most tournament organisers will admit to wanting the big names around at the weekend - and today both Sampras and McEnroe are on the schedule, no matter that the McEnroe vs. Bates match is meaningless, as neither player has a chance of progressing. The (to me) strange lack of semifinals may come down to something related to a limit on the total number of appearances by any of the big names, or perhaps it's all about certainty of scheduling. For example, not only has there been at least one televised match every evening this week (not so last year, when the BBC cameras only appeared at the weekend, and, being the BBC, there were no advertising-related considerations), but this afternoon's Sampras-Pioline encounter was also covered on ITV4, unlike the weekday afternoon sessions. With respect to all the other players, there's little doubt that potential viewers will be most interested in the biggest names, so the planned TV coverage may have had a significant effect here. That said, had there been a semifinal round in between the Round Robin and the final, today we would have been watching Stefan Edberg play Cedric Pioline, and Pete Sampras facing Greg Rusedski.
Even accepting that the BlackRock Tour is a much more relaxed and entertainment-oriented entity than the ATP tour, I must admit that from a competitive standpoint, and as a viewer on site, I preferred the way it was done last year. Not only were there more singles matches on the schedule, but every match was meaningful. In a three-man Round Robin group from which two players will progress, the outcome of every match matters (and so may the margin of victory, in a three-way tie). Of course, set against this added competitive meaning, the four semifinalists were Sergi Bruguera, Cedric Pioline, Guy Forget and Paul Haarhuis. I was there, and it was all high-quality tennis, but a tough sell to many members of the public. Still, I have to ask what would be wrong with the idea of setting up a special exhibition or two at the weekend, to guarantee some big-name appearances at that stage. I expect there would be a few takers for tickets to see Bjorn Borg face John McEnroe, for example - it's happened in other cities since Borg returned on the BlackRock tour, but never yet in London.
