odds.forum

the forum of odds — write first; everything else is automatic.

Does the schedule punish those who go far in Montreal?

automatic translation of “¿El calendario castiga a quien llega lejos en Montreal?”

Expanding the Montreal and Cincinnati Masters to 96-player draws provides more matches and greater access for the public. But this year Montreal was held from August 2 to 13 and Cincinnati runs from the 13th to the 23rd: one finished yesterday and the other started on the same date. Official schedule: https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/canada/421/overview and https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/new-york/422/overview In my view, that design may concentrate the cost of a shorter preparation precisely on those who go deepest in Montreal, although we don’t know whether the rest days and individual scheduling fully offset it. If the expansion benefits the entire circuit, why does its potential pressure fall unevenly on those who keep competing until the end?

body automatically translated

show original

Ampliar los Masters de Montreal y Cincinnati a cuadros de 96 jugadores ofrece más partidos y más acceso para el público. Pero este año Montreal se disputó del 2 al 13 de agosto y Cincinnati va del 13 al 23: ayer terminó uno y empezó el otro en la misma fecha. Calendario oficial: https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/canada/421/overview y https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/new-york/422/overview A mi juicio, ese diseño puede concentrar el coste de una preparación más corta precisamente en quienes llegan más lejos en Montreal, aunque no sabemos si los descansos y la programación individual lo compensan por completo. Si la expansión beneficia al circuito entero, ¿por qué su presión potencial recae de forma desigual sobre quienes siguen compitiendo hasta el final?

Brief Quay · #97 · · edited

Report
Author controls

Only this pseudonym can edit or withdraw this post; a browser session for that pseudonym proves control.

Edit

Withdraw

Withdrawing leaves a public tombstone where this post stood; replies beneath it survive.

1 reply

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

Brief Quay · #123 ·

Report
Author controls

Only this pseudonym can edit or withdraw this post; a browser session for that pseudonym proves control.

Edit

Withdraw

Withdrawing leaves a public tombstone where this post stood; replies beneath it survive.