Games, Sets and Round Robins

Afternoon. Due to a late finish last night, and the need to be at the tournament bright and early today, I haven't had time (yet) to upload yesterday's images to the web, but will do so as soon as I have time to complete the task [Update - the pictures have now been sorted, and can be found on this link.]

The round-robin was concluded yesterday, deciding the quarterfinalists for the BlackRock Masters. You can find the full results and today's schedule here. Until a few years ago, the event that eventually became this BlackRock Masters mimicked the eight-man field of the ATP's season-ending Masters Cup, but it now features a 12-man formula. Earlier in the week, the defending champion, Paul Haarhuis expressed his support for the 12-man approach, on the grounds that it guarantees the public at least two chances to see each player in action.

I'm not a fan of round robins in tennis in general, but I'd wholeheartedly agree that this kind of arrangement makes sense for the tennis being played at the Albert Hall this week. For many visitors, it's more of a fun experience than a serious one, and round-robin has the great advantage of actually delivering players on a set schedule (because they don't get knocked out of an event on Day 1 or 2) Spreading the star-dust around is sound business sense, and it's fair to the ticket-buying public.

Haarhuis noted that one advantage of having round-robin groups of three (rather than four) players is that it lessens the number of potentially meaningless matches. In the example where three players in the group each win a single match, as was the case with Stich, Rusedski and Haarhuis, the outcome of the group is decided on sets won and lost, and then by games. Both of his matches should matter to each of the players. In any match taking place, at least one player will eventually advance. The order in which they advance is also meaningful, as it determines the next opponent.

I'll save the contents of my full, 90-minute interview with Paul Haarhuis for another time, but he did tell me after losing to Greg Rusedski in a Champion's tiebreaker that his aim had been to at least win the group. Winning one set got the job done for him.

I spoke with Haarhuis after he gave Rusedski a stiff battle in which both players were trying hard and serving well. Haarhuis said that receiving Rusedki's was like being a goalkeeper. After winning his group by taking a set from Rusedski, Haarhuis knew that that his next opponent would be McEnroe or Cash. He takes the threat posed by McEnroe seriously, pointing out that although Mac is 48, his fitness and preparation are first-rate and serious. McEnroe has been playing very well recently.

The match between McEnroe and Cash, won by McEnroe, was an ill-tempered affair. Both players argued with, among others, the umpire. It seemed to me that Cash's protests were more or less tit-for-tat following Mac's. Cash is always aware of what's happening in the audience. After the umpire had asked a spectator to switch off his mobile phone only to have the thing start ringing again a few moments later, Cash intervened himself. He asked the fan in a good-humoured but direct way, to switch it off. This time, the man complied.

I was surprised that the organisers put the McEnroe-Haarhuis battle on first in today's afternoon session.  McEnroe is the big star here, and he played last night; he didn't have a lot of turnaround time. The match ended just a little while ago, with Haarhuis decisively taking out Mac, 6-2,6-2. Haarhuis served extremely well - some of his serves clocked around the 120 MPH mark on this fast-ish GreenSet surface - a court similiar to the one used in Madrid and Shanghai. And he returned great.

Afterwards, the players were interviewed on court, for the benefit of the BBC. Haarhuis said that he hadn't beaten Mac so comprehensively before, and seemed a little surprised to do so. McEnroe, who seemed subdued (at least in comparison to his earlier matches - he doesn't "do" truly subdued) said "I played well". But he went on to say that it obviously wasn't enough. He isn't sure whether he'll quit, or come back for one more year. Of Haarhuis, Mac said, in good humour "I'll get him back some time - no-one kicks my ass and gets away with it."

One of the inherent flaws in the Senior game, as it now operates, is that the age range of the players is wide. It can make for some seemingly unfair encounters - though the age gap between Haarhuis and McEnroe is a lot smaller than the one between McEnroe and Marcelo Rios last year. Haarhuis is 41, but he officially retired only four years ago. I wonder, is there a practical way of having age categories within the Tour, which is on a fairly small scale anyway?  Isn't it worth thinking about, in order to keep a McEnroe on board?

I'm told that the GreenSet surface here is one of the "fairer" surfaces used on the Tour - it definitely helps those who serve big, but more important it leads to shorter points, which ultimately helps an aging player like McEnroe. McEnroe versus Bruguera on clay doesn't sound like a compelling match, and the players are aware that there is an "entertainment" element to this Tour. They are willing to experiment with anything (including court speed and elements like the Champion's tiebreak) to help create an attractive product.

We may also see a competitive doubles tournament here in the future. As McEnroe's prowess at singles wanes, the idea of a reunion with Peter Fleming seems a pretty attractive proposition. Fleming, who's married to an Englishwoman, lives here. He's already a fixture in the exhibition doubles. Yesterday, I saw John and Peter practising together and they seemed to be having a good time. As soon as I can get my web uploads sorted out, there will be more pictures, I promise [Update - now uploaded - see link above. Practice session also involved Sergi Bruguera and Guy Forget.]

Some of you may be interested to know how the players are rewarded for their efforts. Prize money is involved in the later stages - £50,000 to the winner, £25,000 to the semifinalists, and £12,500 to the quarterfinalists. Naturally, it's really all about appearance fees. Undoubtedly, the biggest star this week is John McEnroe, but I couldn't get anyone to confirm how much he had been paid to appear. Apparently, everyone negotiates his own deal.

I wondered, though, if the general market value principle holds true for last minute substitutes like Greg Rusedski. With Bjorn Borg and Goran Ivanisevic pulling out, you'd think Rusedski could name his price (given that he is a good drawing card in London). But I understand that players who might be called upon to step in settle the fee issue with the promoters well in advance of the tournament .

I'll sign off for now.

- Rosangel