You’re James Blake, second-best tennis player in America. You travel to the desert for a small tournament, first prize $61,850. You’re the defending champion. At night, you play through freezing temperatures and 32 mph winds. You lose, but, hey, this is round robin, so you can take revenge on that ball tomorrow. You just have to do better than the other two guys in your group and you’ll qualify for the last eight and a chance at the title. The guy who beat you loses to the guy you beat, so now anything can happen. How many games have you won and lost? Won six, lost 12. The other guy’s won 17 and lost 18. So, if you beat your next opponent, an 18-year-old from Argentina, and lose no more than five games, that first guy will go home, and you’ll keep playing. Gotta win big. You’re on fire, and the young Argentine is having trouble breathing. You’re up 6–3, 3–1. He quits. You win! You’re through.

You’re not? The television announcers say you’re finished. So does the ATP Tour rep on site — technically you didn’t win those last three games, and that first guy beat you, so tough luck for you, and good luck for the other guy, Evgeny Korolev. Then you think, hey, wait a second here, you were just knocked out of a tournament because your opponent forfeited a match. When’s the last time that happened? He forfeited, not you, and you lost? That’s not fair! You would have won those last three games easily! Hours pass. The ATP’s president, a logical man, gets on the phone (who called him, anyway? The tournament director who had just lost his star attraction? It’s a mystery…), and he agrees. That rule doesn’t make sense. So he bends it until it does. Move on to the next round, James, he says, and sorry for the trouble. (And my apologies to you, Mr. Korolev. Better luck next time.) Phew! That was a close one. You feel pretty bad for that Mr. K. guy (he’s only 19), but come on, you were killing that kid. Have a beer, get some sleep. Brrrng Brrrng! What’s that? You’re out again? The rules say what? An ATP executive cannot change a rule mid tournament, no matter how stupid it is? What a stupid rule! So, well, um … might as well hit the craps tables. More predictable. “Good luck KMan!” you shout as you peel out of the parking lot.

Ladies and gentleman, we kid you not: These events transpired at the Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas last week (okay, fine, we embellished the part about the beer). Either Lleyton Hewitt or Jurgen Melzer won the title — the final finished after our deadline. It matters not, because this tournament likely will be remembered not for its winner, but as the event that killed round robin.

One thing is for certain: The format used in Las Vegas, a complicated three-part tournament that swings from single elimination (first round) to round robin and back to single elimination, won’t exist after this year — ATP president Etienne De Villiers said so at the Australian Open. To understand why, one need only look at the opening draw of this tournament, so stuffed with names and boxes (see above) that neither players nor longtime fans could unravel it. It’s a good bet that other versions of round robin (excepting the year-end Masters Cup) are finished, too. The ATP likely will take a hatchet to the whole thing at its board meeting in Miami later this month.

Most tennis fans won’t miss round robins. But there’s no joy in seeing the format fail miserably and no point in attacking its creators. When the ATP said it would experiment with these tournaments last year, it offered simple reasons for doing so: Fans at small events would see more of top players, and there would be fewer upsets. Plus, De Villiers said, research showed that fans liked it.

Anyone who follows the yearend Masters Cup knows why the round robin scored well in surveys. But the Masters Cup is no ordinary tournament: It invites the top eight players in the world and is, essentially, an exhibition event to cap the season. It gives the very best players a stage for a few performances; the final single-elimination round is a bonus. The problem with applying this format to larger events is these tournaments begin to look like exhibitions. It also introduces chaos. Las Vegas was not the first event hurt by a withdrawal — different, but equally unfortunate, circumstances arose in Argentina earlier this year.

For all the grief De Villiers received last week for initially ruling in favor of Blake — Marat Safin said the president “disappointed me a lot”; Lleyton Hewitt said he was “gobsmacked” by the decision — it’s unfair to say, “I told you so.” Round robin has had its detractors from day one, but none predicted such a forceful and, it must be said, comical unveiling of its flaws. Still, remember that this was the Tennis Channel Open, not one of the sport’s major tournaments. De Villiers, who prides himself on approaching tennis with the open-mindedness of a casual fan rather than the convictions of a lifer, has said many times that he wants to tinker and learn from mistakes. Judging from the lengthy statement he issued last week apologizing for his decision to declare Blake the victor, Las Vegas has taught him a lot. This was a worthy experiment, but it’s over.

tperrotta@nysun.com