User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Thomas/Uber Cup - Rule Change (Suggestion)

    The rules for TUC competition have evolved over the years. The current one as we saw in TUC 2010 (Kuala Lumpur) is generally laid out as follows.
    1. 12 teams are seeded (based on a specified ranking system) into 3 brackets of four teams per bracket.
    2. Teams are drawn into 4 groups with with each group having a team from the top bracket (in 2010, the top bracket consists of CHN, INA, MAS and DEN), a team from the mid bracket and a team from the low bracket.
    3. A round-robin competition within each group commences.
    4. After the round-robin competition, the last team of each group is eliminated.
    5. The 4 group-topping teams and 4 runner-up teams advance to the elimination stage (starting from QF).
    6. The group-topping teams are seeded 1 to 4 (based on a specified ranking system).
      Imagine the draw as such:
      Code:
      (Slot 1 
          v Slot 2) 
        v (Slot 3 
          v Slot 4)  
      v 
      (Slot 5 
          v Slot 6) 
        v (Slot 7 
          v Slot 8)
    7. Seed 1 is slotted into Slot 1. Seed 2 is slotted into Slot 8.
    8. Seeds 3 & 4 are drawn into Slots 4 and 5.
    9. The group runner-up teams are drawn into Slots 2, 3, 6 and 7.
    10. The elimination round commences.


    Note: The current team ranking method sums up the World Ranking points of a team's top 3 singles players and top 2 doubles pairs in the World Ranking system (this is regardless of the actual team being fielded in the TUC). The team with a higher total points is ranked higher.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Criticism of current rule:
    As evidenced from the recently concluded TUC (2010 Kuala Lumpur), KOR played CHN in the group stage and were again drawn to play against CHN in the QF of the elimination stage.
    Other than that, I actually don't have any other significant criticism for the current rule.

    So, my suggestion for tweaking the rule is as such. (It's pretty simple, really.) Teams from the same group cannot be drawn against each other for the QF stage of the elimination round. So, based on the top post, the tweak will only change Step no. 9 to the following.
    9. The group runners-up will the drawn into Slots 2, 3, 6 and 7 with the additional condition that two teams from the same group will not be drawn against each other.
    So, for each team in the runners-up bag, there are actually only 3 Slots available.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    London & Penang
    Posts
    6,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yup, agreed, i think that's how most competitions work when there's a draw after group stages. there's a small possibility of all 8 teams playing each other again, which would have been a nightmare. this simple rule change would avoid all that and make the QFs more exciting.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I have my wish, I want to add a further tweak to the rule.
    We already have
    1. Seed 1 go into Slot 1, e.g. CHN to the top of the draw, using the recent Thomas Cup as example
    2. Seed 2 go into Slot 8, e.g. INA to the bottom of the draw
    3. Seeds 3 and 4 (JPN and DEN) to be drawn into Slots 4 and 5.


    My further tweak is this:
    1. For the runners-up group, seed the teams accordingly. We can name them Seeds 5, 6, 7 and 8.
    2. For Seeds 5 and 6 (MAS and KOR), draw them (if necessary) to Slots 3 and 6. A draw is not necessary in this example because MAS and JPN were in the same group. So, MAS will go against DEN and KOR will go against JPN.
    3. For Seeds 7 and 8 (GER and IND), draw them to Slots 2 and 7, unless it is not necessary due to the "same group" rule.


    The purpose of this rule is to make the draw more interesting (and probably more balanced) by having the top seeds of the group runners-up face the bottom seeds of the group winners in the QF.

    In the recently concluded TUC, DEN and CHN were drawn to the same half as group winners. JPN and INA in the other half. So far so good. But the runners-up can be drawn to any of the 4 remaining slots. And it so happened that KOR and MAS were both drawn into the same half against DEN and CHN. JPN and INA had the relatively easier matches against IND and GER.

    But if we were to utilise my tweak above, then KOR would have been pitted against JPN (a good match) and MAS against DEN (another good match as we have seen). One half would have CHN, DEN, MAS and IND. The other would have INA, KOR, JPN and GER. A more balanced draw in the end.
    Last edited by hcyong; 05-25-2010 at 11:23 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Using my tweak, the following draws for the QF are possible.
    CHN as Seed 1 is firmly in Slot 1.
    INA as Seed 2 is firmly in Slot 8.
    JPN and DEN as Seeds 3/4 are drawn into Slots 4 and 5.
    MAS and KOR as Seeds 5/6 are drawn against Seeds 3/4. (Since MAS and JPN are from same group, therefore MAS v DEN and KOR v JPN)
    GER and IND as Seeds 7/8 are drawn against Seeds 1/2. (Since INA and IND are from same group, therefore CHN v IND and INA v GER)

    So, the draw could be
    1. Top half: CHN v IND, MAS v DEN, Bottom half: KOR v JPN, INA v GER
    2. Top half: CHN v IND, KOR v JPN, Bottom half: INA v GER, MAS v DEN
    Either way, a more balanced draw and more interesting for the fans.

  6. #6
    Regular Member robin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puchong Prima
    Posts
    13,684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, you are saying that the teams in the group during Round-Robin Stage cannot be drawn to face each other in the Elimination Stage.

    In other words, the eventual champion will have to play 5 (2RR+1QF+1SF+1F) DIFFERENT teams in order to win the title.

    It sounds good to me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robin7 View Post
    So, you are saying that the teams in the group during Round-Robin Stage cannot be drawn to face each other in the Elimination Stage.

    In other words, the eventual champion will have to play 5 (2RR+1QF+1SF+1F) DIFFERENT teams in order to win the title.

    It sounds good to me.
    No, only the 2RR and 1QF are guaranteed to be different teams.
    But with the implementation of seedings, it is more likely that 1SF and 1F will be different teams as well.

  8. #8
    Regular Member robin7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puchong Prima
    Posts
    13,684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay. I got what you mean.

    CMIIW. Assuming A1 and A2 are the winner and runner-up respectively in group A and likewise, the QF line-ups will look something like this:

    Top half
    A1 vs B2
    B1 vs D2

    Bottom half
    C1 vs A2
    D1 vs C2

    But C1 will still meet C2 in SF if they both advance.

    What if we were to restrict the teams in the same group during Round-Robin Stage cannot be drawn to face each other in the Elimination Stage?

    It is just to make sure that every team will only play a particular team once before the final.

    Top half
    A1 vs C2
    B1 vs D2

    Bottom half
    C1 vs A2
    D1 vs B2

  9. #9
    Regular Member extremenanopowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SG. Go for NCAP-L2 certified coach.
    Posts
    11,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nice. pls fast forward the time to 2012...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    London & Penang
    Posts
    6,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm not sure it would be fair to seed teams after the group stages. fair enough seeding them when deciding on the initial groups but to use those seeds after that is over the top. besides, it takes away the randomness factor which, on its own, brings about an additional layer of excitement.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it IS fair to seed teams after the group stages, but I agree it takes away the excitement of randomness.

    Imagine if you are strong 5th seed (e.g. could be MAS, KOR or DEN) and you have the possibility of having the top seed (say, CHN) in the group matches and then the second seed (say, INA) in the QF. In fact, it's not just unfair, but also takes away the excitement of competition. I like the possibility of closer competition and what closer competition than the 5th/6th seed slugging it out against 3rd/4th seed.

    As with everything in life, it's a trade-off. I personally would prefer a closer competition.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robin7 View Post
    Okay. I got what you mean.

    CMIIW. Assuming A1 and A2 are the winner and runner-up respectively in group A and likewise, the QF line-ups will look something like this:

    Top half
    A1 vs B2
    B1 vs D2

    Bottom half
    C1 vs A2
    D1 vs C2

    But C1 will still meet C2 in SF if they both advance.

    What if we were to restrict the teams in the same group during Round-Robin Stage cannot be drawn to face each other in the Elimination Stage?

    It is just to make sure that every team will only play a particular team once before the final.

    Top half
    A1 vs C2
    B1 vs D2

    Bottom half
    C1 vs A2
    D1 vs B2
    Yeah, I like this format. With some modifications.
    A1 to D1 seeded 1 to 4. Seed 1 to top half, Seed 2 to bottom, Seeds 3 and 4 drawn to top and bottom (exactly like the existing rule).
    The runners-up of groups whose winners are in the bottom half, go to the top half. Both teams are seeded. Higher seed meets the 3rd/4th seed. Lower seeds meets the 1st seed in the top half.
    The runners-up of groups whose winners are in the top half, go to the bottom half. etc. etc.

    There is only one possible problem with this. The second-ranked team among the runners-up could pair up with the 1st or 2nd seed in the QF. But I still like this arangement because there is no possibility of a rematch before the final.

Similar Threads

  1. Change the service rule
    By H8work in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 1
    : 03-17-2012, 01:03 PM
  2. SCG Thomas&Uber Cup 2010 Preliminary Asia Zone:Day 6(27 Feb) Final(Thomas)&SF(Uber)
    By simonlovers in forum Thomas / Uber Cup 2010 Preliminaries
    Replies: 94
    : 02-28-2010, 03:27 AM
  3. BWF to tighten Thomas Cup, Uber Cup rules, change format
    By Loh in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 2
    : 12-27-2008, 03:31 PM
  4. What Rule(Law) would you change....
    By serviceover in forum General Forum
    Replies: 18
    : 02-03-2006, 02:33 PM
  5. RULE CHANGE
    By johnboy in forum General Forum
    Replies: 14
    : 01-17-2002, 07:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •