I know there’s another thread for “Tournament format help”, but I think my situation is sort of different. Therefore, I would like to start a new one to collect advice. I am going to participate in a Tri-state Area team tourney in Dec, and I just received the “format” via email. I am very thankful for the host to doing a lot of extra work to get such a big event going, but I really have some concerns about the “format”, especially the 1st round – ground internal matches: Here’s the quote from host for the format: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >FORMAT: >The 2003 NYC Invitational Tournament's format will be the same as in previous years... > >The eight teams will be divided into two pools (A and B) of four teams. Within each pool, the four teams will play in a round-robin format. > >Each team-to-team matchup tie will consist of 3 men's singles, 1 ladies singles, 3 men's doubles, 1 ladies doubles, and 1 mixed doubles. Play the whole 9 games. > >At the end of the first round competition, the relative position of each team (first to fourth place) will be determined. (In case of a tie, the total >matches won by the tied teams will be used to determine a winner) > >In the 2nd round, We will use the Cross-over format. Every 2 opponent teams will take the best 5 out of 9 games. The team wins the 1st 5 games will be the winner, the 6th to 9th games will be automatically defaulted in order to save time. > >The teams will be again divided into two pools where the winner of pool A (A1) will play the second place finisher of pool B (B2). Similarly, the second place finisher of pool A (A2) will play the winner of pool B (B1). The winners of this round will advance to the finals. The losers will play for third and fourth place. > >The fifth to eighth place teams will be determined in a similar manner. > >There will be 8 teams using 6 courts. 4 out of the 8 teams will using 4 courts ( which every 2 opponent teams using 2 courts at the same time ); meanwhile, another 4 out of the 8 teams will only have 2 courts to use ( which every 2 opponent teams will use one court ) > >Eventhough, we have the gym time from 9am to 11pm ( we have add extra 3 hours in comparing to last year ), we still worry that the time might be tight!! In order to finish on time, there are several things Captains need to keep in mind: > >1. The following format are the orders of the games scheduled. Captains of the 2 opponent teams can negociate the order if there is any inconvinience and difficulties. The order of the matches are scheduled as following: ( object to changes by organizer at the site ) > >The 2 teams using 2 courts at the same time: >1st & 2nd games: men's single A, men's single B >3rd & 4th games: Lady's single , Men's single C >5th & 6th games: men's double A, men's double B >7th & 8th games: lady's doubel, men's double C >9th game: mix double > >The 2 teams using 1 courts only: >1st game: men's single A >2nd game: lady's single >3rd game: men's single B >4th game: men's double A >5th game: lady's double >6th game: men's double B >7th game: men's single C >8th game: mix double >9th game: men's double C ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I have more concern with the way to determine ranks within 1st round, after doing some “analysis”, I came up with 2 special situations for possible result: 1. Result: A’s record (6:3, 6:3, 5:4), B’s record (3:6, 9:0, 8:1) Total team record: A: 3-0 B: 2-1 Total winning games: B: 20 A: 17 2. Result: A’s record (5:4, 5:4, 5:4), B’s record (4:5, 4:5, 9:0), C’s record (4:5, 5:4, 7:2) Total team record: A: 3-0 B: 1-2 C: 2-1 Total winning games: B: 17 C: 16 A: 15 In both cases, u can see A will be ranked #1 in its group. However, clearly, A seems lack of depth in its team. It contains several top players to “guarantee win”, but its bottom half even having difficulty to against the worst team (D). B (ex#1) and B/C (ex#2) clearly having much better depth. Their players might having problem to deal with the top elites from A, but clearly a much better “team”, as they can grab necessary victories if necessary. As some of u might already have the feeling, I bring up this issue is because my own team is more like the 2nd kind – no top ones, but contains a huge pool of decent players. Individually, no doubt, I respect the best ones from group A, but this is a “TEAM tournament”. Aren’t suppose to be the BEST IN OVERALL should advance with better ranking? However, how to draw the line is quite difficult, especially in ex#2. I know there’s no perfect system to satisfy everyone. Group A will be happy for the current setting, but other group(s) surely will feel much better if there’s a change (i.e using # of games winning). I just want to bring this up, let ppl give me some ideas / suggestions, to see whether there’s a chance I can possibly give some suggestions to the host to make necessary changes.
Indeed there is no perfect system. However, if team A wins all team matches, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be ranked number one, even if they have some weak spots. On the other hand, counting the number of winning games is a fair alternative but surely not superior to the proposed system.
I wish I could make some meaningful comment that would help you, but truth is, I dont quite understand the format for this tournament. In particular, more information on team composition and the cross-over format would help. Also, who decides which member of a team plays a certain game. I see the overall point you're making with post, however I do not think that a team should be as strong as its weakest link. In this case, assuming all team members play an equal amount of the team's games, the team with a majority of quality players should triumph. At least, thats what Ive experienced. From personal experience, our club has a player who is a class apart from the rest of us. His performance in any match he plays makes a huge difference to the way we play. However, we still lose matches to teams because one person alone cannot carry a team. You need a majority of players to be better than the opposition, or a heck of a lot of luck
Re: Re: Another Tournament Format question - Need Help... I see your point. However, to me, counting # of winning games (being tested 9 times) should be more effectively reflect the "group", than counting the record (might be just tested 5 times). To me, if a team has a larger pool of talents, should be better than a team with just several "top gun". An example I can think is the past S. Cup. Even though KOR won the cup, but CHN is no doubt still the #1 powerhouse in the sport. Why? Just think if the S.Cup still using the old format (9 games)...
