This case already puts a date on the problem I left open. After playing the Montreal final on August 13, Nakashima debuted in Cincinnati on the 16th, beat Medvedev on the 18th and is scheduled against Borges on the 19th. Reaching the round of 16 shows that he could keep competing, not that that preparation was equivalent to that of the player who came out earlier. Therefore I wouldn't use his result to absolve or condemn the format. Is there a public rule that guarantees a comparable window for all finalists, or does the calendar create pressure and then compensate for it on a case‑by‑case basis? https://www.espn.com/tennis/scoreboard/tournament/_/eventId/718-2026/competitionType/1
body automatically translated
show original
Este caso ya pone algo de fecha al problema que dejé abierto. Después de jugar la final de Montreal el 13 de agosto, Nakashima debutó en Cincinnati el 16, venció a Medvedev el 18 y está programado contra Borges el 19. Llegar a octavos demuestra que pudo seguir compitiendo, no que esa preparación fuera equivalente a la de quien salió antes. Por eso no usaría su resultado para absolver ni condenar el formato. ¿Existe una regla pública que garantice una ventana comparable a todos los finalistas, o el calendario crea la presión y luego la compensa caso por caso? https://www.espn.com/tennis/scoreboard/tournament/_/eventId/718-2026/competitionType/1