2008 TT TB System [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2008 TT TB System

Labamba
12-12-2007, 11:48 PM
edit: now showing the 2009 TB System

Tiebreak System (TB)

TB System will have to be used in the event of both players/teams tipping the same amount of winners in a round.

For each round the manager must decide on 20 SR (set ratio) matches and these should be numbered SR1 > SR20 with SR1 also being a PTS (predict-the-score) match. This should be done for every round (where possible). These selected matches should be considered to be the most difficult to predict in the schedule. However selection of the matches chosen is always at the manager's discretion. For every 1st round of every draw (singles & doubles, main draw & qualifying) players should send PTS scores for all 20 SR matches. This is done to avoid any match being decided by ranking.

The new TT TB System:

Note: Matches with retirement won't count in the TB system.

1. Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-20 (20 where possible) > if same then

2. Set Ratio shoot-out: 1-20 (compare SR1, SR2, SR3, etc.) > if same then

Note: When both players pick the loser, the shoot-out win goes to the one who gave more sets to the winner.

3. PTS 1 (1-20 in all first round matches)

Both players have incorrect winner in the PTS match: +2 points for every set predicted for the winner

Correct order of sets for:

1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 4 points
3 sets – 7 points
4 sets – 10 points
5 sets – 13 points

Correct scoreline for:

1 set – 3 points
2 sets – 6 points
3 sets – 9 points
4 sets – 12 points
5 sets – 15 points

4. Tournament Countback (CB) - # of correct picks from all the previous rounds (qualifying not counted)

5. CB1 (countback from previous round), CB2 (countback from two rounds back), CB3, etc.

6. Steps 1-3 from the previous round(s)

7. Game Difference and Number of Games System (taken from the PTS scores) (If the picked player of either TT-player loses, the PTS doesn't count for GD purposes; 20 possible GD matches in the first rounds)

The game difference and the number of games played is used.

example 1
player A - Federer 6-4 6-3 = +5 game difference and 19 games played
player B - Federer 6-4 7-5 = +4 game difference and 22 games played

result - Federer 6-4 7-6 = +3 game difference and 23 games played.

player A -> 2 game difference + 4 games played = 6
player B -> 1 game difference + 1 games played = 2

-> player B def player A

example 2
player A - Federer 6-1 1-6 7-6 = +1 game difference and 27 games played
player B - Federer 7-5 6-7 7-6 = +2 game difference and 38 games played

result - Federer 7-6 6-7 7-6 = +1 game difference and 39 games played.

player A -> 0 game difference + 12 games played = 12
player B -> 1 game difference + 1 games played = 2

-> player B def player A

If there's a tie, the player with the closer game difference will advance. If both players have the same game difference and the same number of games played, then

8. Ranking (the higher ranked player/team wins)

Labamba
12-12-2007, 11:48 PM
examples (to come)

Please use this thread to ask any questions about the new TB System :wavey:

Tankman
12-13-2007, 01:36 PM
Wait up... sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but we're not counting retirements AT ALL?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it... but I thought there was a resolution to leave it as it was and count ret. matches :scratch:

savesthedizzle
12-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Wait up... sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but we're not counting retirements AT ALL?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it... but I thought there was a resolution to leave it as it was and count ret. matches :scratch:

Yeah, I thought the decision was to count them as a winner, but not in the TB, ...as it was now. :scratch:

Labamba
12-13-2007, 10:25 PM
Wait up... sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but we're not counting retirements AT ALL?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it... but I thought there was a resolution to leave it as it was and count ret. matches :scratch:

good question that needs clarification

The matches with retirement (one point played) will count as normal when you are counting how many picks the player has correct, nothing has changed there.

But the idea is not to count them if the match is tied and is decided by the TB System. For example, the match goes to TB part 3. SR shoot-out...SR1 is Verdasco vs Mathieu, Verdasco def. Mathieu 6-7 4-6 5-5 ret., player A has Verdasco and player B has Mathieu. In the old system player A would have won this, now this match won't count and we go the next SR.

The question that was left open was which parts of the TB System this would concern? This brings up another question, is there some cases where a match with retirement should count in the TB System (6-3 3-0 ret. for example)?

GustavoM_Fan
12-13-2007, 10:38 PM
6-3 3-0 ret. have to be counted..

tiptopdaisy lost a match in Lima this year.. he was needing Horna 2-0 in sets if not he will lost in the next SR..
and Horna won 6-0 3-0 ret.. so the match wasn`t counted for SR and he lost

Labamba
12-13-2007, 11:00 PM
^The retirement rule in TB is clearly one matter that still needs to be resolved before the new season.

GustavoM_Fan
12-13-2007, 11:04 PM
the match only should be counted for TB Rule if the winner is break up in the final set of the match. and with 2 or 3 games difference in this last set

Caio_Brasil
12-13-2007, 11:08 PM
in challenger circuit we can't know if the player was break up :shrug:

Labamba
12-13-2007, 11:12 PM
the match only should be counted for TB Rule if the winner is break up in the final set of the match. and with 2 or 3 games difference in this last set

needs to be more specific, the rule has to be ironclad and that can work without livescores

GustavoM_Fan
12-13-2007, 11:12 PM
so. 2 or 3 games difference in the final set for the winner.

there wont be many situations like this next year. but I think there should be rule to solve any match like this.

GustavoM_Fan
12-13-2007, 11:15 PM
needs to be more specific, the rule has to be ironclad and that can work without livescores

forget livescores

if the result is:

Marcaccio 6-4 3-6 1-0 ret. = not counted
Marcaccio 6-4 5-7 3-0 ret. = counted like Marcaccio 2-1

Marcaccio 6-0 5-0 ret. = counted like Marcaccio 2-0
Marcaccio 6-0 1-0 ret. = not counted

only if the winner of the match is leading with a more than 2 games difference (or more games difference :shrug:)

Labamba
12-14-2007, 07:04 AM
Marcaccio 6-0 2-0 ret. not counted, but
Marcaccio 6-0 3-0 ret. would count

:silly:

What would be your suggestion for the best of 5 matches?

FiBeR
12-14-2007, 10:18 AM
I lost in what i think is the most TT unlucky match of history to be played and a really sucky Retired match by gremelmayr vs fognini, fognini trailing 64 53RET and i lost on pts after having a difference of me picking fognini 2-0 vs 2-1.. :tape:

that sucked really bad.. but, apart from being a really rare case, in my opinion retiring matches shouldnt count at all.. (not even the 64 53)

let's not leave room for free interpretation cos this game is getting bigger and bigger.. and a rule is a rule, no exceptions..

What i mean is..sounds unfair to the person under that circunstance.. but, well.. it happened to me, and it was horrible cos i thought i deserved a win, but well.. that was it.. I kinda knew the rules and there was not much i could do.. i tried to ask if the match could be considered and i got a "no", which was fair enough.. and well..tried to leave it alone..


i thought it was really unfair but looking back i think "rules are rules" and no matter how close it was.. i only blame :retard: gremelmayr for retiring, not the rules.. those are clear and we should know them and be ok with them.. no matter what, and even if an specific case look unfair, rules apply for everyone.. leave the retired matches out of the tie break IMO :shrug:

lets save energy on discussing if a match should or should not be counted.. when retired.. we all must know they dont, unfair or not, those are the rules, deal with them

Deathless Mortal
12-14-2007, 01:28 PM
Not really possible to post the differences with #2-Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-10 ...

Labamba
12-14-2007, 04:29 PM
Not really possible to post the differences with #2-Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-10 ...

the idea is to post the players picks in full (copy/paste from excel)

it's the easiest way :)

adee-gee
12-14-2007, 05:36 PM
I actually agree with Felipe for a change....

I would say a rule of "if the player is +3 games up in a set which can decide the match, it should be counted".

Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-6 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 3-6 3-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-0 2-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 ---> not counted.

adee-gee
12-14-2007, 05:36 PM
the idea is to post the players picks in full (copy/paste from excel)

it's the easiest way :)
Can you send me the way you do yours on Excel out of interest......

I usually just stick them on Microsoft Word in order of matches :shrug:

I'll kind of miss the "What does Dana need" questions :sad:

savesthedizzle
12-15-2007, 01:11 AM
I actually agree with Felipe for a change....

I would say a rule of "if the player is +3 games up in a set which can decide the match, it should be counted".

Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-6 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 3-6 3-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-0 2-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 ---> not counted.


I just feel that the Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 situation can be so shady sometimes. There have been matches where players retire as a player is serving out the match :tape: and those are the matches where the loss hurts the most. One break is enough to win a set, I don't see why in the case of someone being 5-3, to win in TT they suddenly need TWO breaks. :shrug:

Honestly I say just don't count them at all in the TB, count them only as a win or a loss but not at all for SR or PTS. :shrug: That's my stance on the issue.

GustavoM_Fan
12-15-2007, 04:01 AM
Marcaccio 6-0 2-0 ret. not counted, but
Marcaccio 6-0 3-0 ret. would count

:silly:

What would be your suggestion for the best of 5 matches?

ok, so count 2 game difference. I prefer 1 break difference. but in challengers wont be possible.
but remember this situations are not usual

Marcaccio 6-0 2-0 ret. counted
Marcaccio 6-0 1-0 ret. not counted


about 5 set matches. only have to be counted for SRs
if the winners is leading in the last set.

Tsonga 6-4 6-3 2-0 ret. (counted like 3-0)
Tsonga 6-3 3-6 6-4 3-6 2-0 ret. (counted like 3-2)
Tsonga 6-4 4-6 1-0 ret. (not counted)
Tsonga 6-0 0-6 6-0 5-0 ret. (counted like 2-1)

Labamba
12-16-2007, 09:58 AM
I actually agree with Felipe for a change....

I would say a rule of "if the player is +3 games up in a set which can decide the match, it should be counted".

Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-6 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-3 3-0 ---> counted.
Nadal def. Federer 3-6 3-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 6-0 2-0 ---> not counted.
Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 ---> not counted.

I'd say +2 games up is enough for it to be counted, you only need the one break in tennis most of the time...

A poll is needed to see where the players stand on this.

Taz Warrior
12-16-2007, 01:50 PM
I just feel that the Nadal def. Federer 7-6 6-7 5-3 situation can be so shady sometimes. There have been matches where players retire as a player is serving out the match :tape: and those are the matches where the loss hurts the most. One break is enough to win a set, I don't see why in the case of someone being 5-3, to win in TT they suddenly need TWO breaks. :shrug:

Honestly I say just don't count them at all in the TB, count them only as a win or a loss but not at all for SR or PTS. :shrug: That's my stance on the issue.

I agree with Jess - I am completely against counting the SR if a match is unfinished - we can't start speculating on how a match would have finished. Count the winner but not the SR.

Björki
12-16-2007, 04:18 PM
yes please, only count the winner but not the SR

Labamba
12-27-2007, 02:24 PM
Set Ratios will never count if there's a retirement in a match, no matter what the score is.

Matches with retirement won't count in the TB system parts 2-4.

Tankman
12-30-2007, 08:22 AM
Just for clarification, "2. Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-10 (10 where possible)" means the whole SR has to be correct right?

i.e. Federer wins 6/4 6/4 - Federer 2-0 is 'correct' while Federer 2-1 is not

Or does it only mean the SR winner has to be right?

i.e. for the above example - Federer 2-1 is also 'correct'

Labamba
12-30-2007, 08:54 AM
Just for clarification, "2. Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-10 (10 where possible)" means the whole SR has to be correct right?

i.e. Federer wins 6/4 6/4 - Federer 2-0 is 'correct' while Federer 2-1 is not

Or does it only mean the SR winner has to be right?

i.e. for the above example - Federer 2-1 is also 'correct'

yes, they must have the Set Ratio correct, not only the winner

Federer 2-0 = 1 point
Federer 2-1 = no points

Taz Warrior
12-30-2007, 08:55 AM
Just for clarification, "2. Total # of Set Ratios correct: 1-10 (10 where possible)" means the whole SR has to be correct right?

i.e. Federer wins 6/4 6/4 - Federer 2-0 is 'correct' while Federer 2-1 is not

Yes this bit is right :)

Tankman
12-30-2007, 09:17 AM
Ok thanks guys :)

balloon
12-30-2007, 03:01 PM
Does this mean that

In a match where there are 7 SR, if I have the correct SR 1 and SR 1 winner, SR 2-6 correct winners but the wrong SR 4 and SR 5, and if my opponent has the wrong SR 1 and wrong SR 1 winner, but has SR 2 - 6 correct winners and correct SR , I lose?

Labamba
12-30-2007, 03:10 PM
Does this mean that

In a match where there are 7 SR, if I have the correct SR 1 and SR 1 winner, SR 2-6 correct winners but the wrong SR 4 and SR 5, and if my opponent has the wrong SR 1 and wrong SR 1 winner, but has SR 2 - 6 correct winners and correct SR , I lose?

no, because you have more correct winners (7-6) :lol:

balloon
12-30-2007, 03:19 PM
no, because you have more correct winners (7-6) :lol:


I dun really understand #1.. :haha:

1) So it means that whoever got more SR1 - SR 7 winners will win first?

2) Followed by if the number of SR1- SR7 winners are tied then who has the correct number of SR win first?

3) Lastly, if first 2 are tied, and if i happen to have the correct SR3 and wrong SR5 and my opponent has the wrong SR3 but correct SR5, i win?

Blue Heart24
12-30-2007, 03:35 PM
This TB system is all fucked up,and the nubmer 1 rule in the system (total # of correct SR winners) is completely useless and dumb.
Nowdays,almost all matches are SR's (with 10 sr matches in every round :rolleyes:),and in 95% of cases if a match is tied,the number of correct SR winners is also tied.

So all the time the deciding factor is #2 rule (total number of correct Set Ratios).

Should be changed immediately,its the most ridicolous rule ever.

Labamba
12-30-2007, 03:52 PM
I dun really understand #1.. :haha:

1) So it means that whoever got more SR1 - SR 7 winners will win first?

2) Followed by if the number of SR1- SR7 winners are tied then who has the correct number of SR win first?

3) Lastly, if first 2 are tied, and if i happen to have the correct SR3 and wrong SR5 and my opponent has the wrong SR3 but correct SR5, i win?

:haha:

1) If there's 7 SR's, then there's 7 matches, most correct winners decides

2) Part 2, which player has the most Set Ratios correct

3) Part 3 is the 'old' shoot-out system, the system we used the past year

Labamba
12-30-2007, 03:54 PM
This TB system is all fucked up,and the nubmer 1 rule in the system (total # of correct SR winners) is completely useless and dumb.
Nowdays,almost all matches are SR's (with 10 sr matches in every round :rolleyes:),and in 95% of cases if a match is tied,the number of correct SR winners is also tied.

So all the time the deciding factor is #2 rule (total number of correct Set Ratios).

Should be changed immediately,its the most ridicolous rule ever.

don't be ridiculous man, it's much better than the old one :p

GustavoM_Fan
12-30-2007, 03:59 PM
seeing Adelaide qualies. I think this rule is working better than old one
maybe 10 are too much Set Ratios

Blue Heart24
12-30-2007, 04:00 PM
don't be ridiculous man, it's much better than the old one :p

in general maybe it is,but I am talking about the #1 rule.Dont you agree that almost in every tied match the deciding factor is #2 rule? (total number of correct set ratios).:wavey:

GustavoM_Fan
12-30-2007, 04:17 PM
yes, with 10 Set Ratios. normally the #2 rule is the deciding factor

balloon
12-30-2007, 04:21 PM
:haha:

1) If there's 7 SR's, then there's 7 matches, most correct winners decides

2) Part 2, which player has the most Set Ratios correct

3) Part 3 is the 'old' shoot-out system, the system we used the past year



okie i think i get it!
thanks for replying!
happy new yr! :wavey:

Labamba
12-30-2007, 04:28 PM
in general maybe it is,but I am talking about the #1 rule.Dont you agree that almost in every tied match the deciding factor is #2 rule? (total number of correct set ratios).:wavey:

yes, of course, #1 can only work with large oop's

#1 is just a fail safe, to prevent strange losses in slams/masters

#2 was always going to be the main tiebreaker

TankingTheSet
01-29-2008, 07:50 PM
TB5: (after PTS)

5. Tournament Countback (CB) - # of correct picks from all the previous rounds (qualifying not counted)


:wavey: I think this rule is flawed. In some challengers some seeded players have Byes for both the singles and doubles first round, so they don't send picks on the first day, and therefore they will virtually always lose on Tournament Countback. It would be more fair if normal countback is used earlier. :wavey:

Labamba
01-29-2008, 08:02 PM
TB5: (after PTS)



:wavey: I think this rule is flawed. In some challengers some seeded players have Byes for both the singles and doubles first round, so they don't send picks on the first day, and therefore they will virtually always lose on Tournament Countback. It would be more fair if normal countback is used earlier. :wavey:

Players should always send picks, even if they have a bye. The managers always keep telling that :p

Not sending picks is like asking for bad karma...the 'curse of the CB' is known to most original TT addicts :lol:

TankingTheSet
02-06-2008, 02:09 PM
According to a strict interpretation of the TB rules, matches with a retirement also don't count in the SR shootout, even if one player has the correct winner.

I think this is counter-intuitive and a weakness/mistake in the TB system and should be corrected.

In last year's SR shootout system when a match with a retirement was considered the correct winner rule did count. I see no reason why it should be different this year

I know there was a poll about the validity of SRs in a match with a retirement, but the poll asked the question about normal validity of SRs in the SR count or shootout, not whether retirement matches should could as correct winner in the SR shootout

I am not happy with this situation!

Labamba
02-06-2008, 02:50 PM
Retired matches shouldn't decide in the TB (parts 2-4), it's enough that you get a point for a match like that. I think the new system has worked really well.

TankingTheSet
02-06-2008, 02:53 PM
I agree that the new system has worked well, I like it, it's just for the rare occasion of retirement matches in SR1 or SR2 I feel that the correct winner rule should be used in the SR shootout, it just doesn't feel right otherwise.

Labamba
02-06-2008, 03:06 PM
I agree that the new system has worked well, I like it, it's just for the rare occasion of retirement matches in SR1 or SR2 I feel that the correct winner rule should be used in the SR shootout, it just doesn't feel right otherwise.

It can feel very wrong too, for example in cases where the leading player gets injured or if the retirement happens in the first set. SR shootout involves a lot of luck already (order of SR's), it's probably better not to bring more potentially lucky/unlucky situations with retirements into it. It's the same for everybody and these things even out in the long run.

stealthisnick
02-06-2008, 07:08 PM
Retired matches shouldn't decide in the TB (parts 2-4), it's enough that you get a point for a match like that. I think the new system has worked really well.

to me it seems quite clear that is a nonsense this way
if the winner of a match with a retirement it counts, it should count everywhere
that's quite logic
or it counts for both or for none

ExcaliburII
02-24-2008, 12:13 AM
I dont understand why we dont have shootout of correct winners. Having the correct winner of SR1 should be more important than having the correct winner fr SR2.

Labamba
02-24-2008, 12:18 AM
I dont understand why we dont have shootout of correct winners. Having the correct winner of SR1 should be more important than having the correct winner fr SR2.

:confused:

the shootout we use covers this

ExcaliburII
02-24-2008, 01:30 AM
No.

If for example i have this picks

Federer 64 63
Nadal 2-0

and my opponent has:

Cañas 64 63
Nalbandian 2-0


Cañas wins 62 46 62 and Nadal wins 2-1 it would go to the next stage of game differences or whatever.

TankingTheSet
02-24-2008, 01:39 AM
No.

If for example i have this picks

Federer 64 63
Nadal 2-0

and my opponent has:

Cañas 64 63
Nalbandian 2-0


Cañas wins 62 46 62 and Nadal wins 2-1 it would go to the next stage of game differences or whatever.

Not true, it would be decided on SR-shoot-out SR1-correct winner:

1:1 Player1 vs Player2 #SR2 0:0 SR-shoot-out SR1 Federer vs Canas

However if Canas won 6-2 4-2 ret. then the SR1 does not count in the SR-shoot-out, so Player1 would win.

1:1 Player1 vs Player2 #SR2 0:0 SR-shoot-out SR1 VOID SR2 Nadal vs Nalbandian

I don't agree with this I think that matches with retirement should count in the SR-shootout, so that player2 always wins.

ExcaliburII
02-24-2008, 01:40 AM
Ah, I thought it didnt cover the correct winner the rule about SR. Thanks :hatoff:

Snowwy
02-24-2008, 01:54 AM
No.

If for example i have this picks

Federer 64 63
Nadal 2-0

and my opponent has:

Cañas 64 63
Nalbandian 2-0


Cañas wins 62 46 62 and Nadal wins 2-1 it would go to the next stage of game differences or whatever.

Wouldnt your opponent win then, SR1 (Correct Winner)

GustavoM_Fan
02-24-2008, 09:32 AM
it is very unfair if u do a tactical set ratio pick and it is ruined by a silly retirement. hope there will be change about this in the future

Rik.
02-24-2008, 09:54 PM
it is very unfair if u do a tactical set ratio pick and it is ruined by a silly retirement. hope there will be change about this in the future

you that rule is :hearts:









NOT :o
look how belco and I lost in Memphis :rolleyes:

GustavoM_Fan
02-25-2008, 06:15 PM
yes, same that Almagro did vs Chela last week.
and because this PaulHopkins beat Caralimon thnks to the SR Shootout System

I posted about this problem before the start of the season, hope now people will understand that retiremements happen often

In Bergamo I was needing Vicente to win for win at Set Ratios... his opponent retired in the Match Point (vicente was serving for match). and the match wasnt counted :retard: and because this I lost a big chance to get more points in the next rounds (this happen often to me):o
there should be a rule change about this in the next months (before clay Masters Series) in my opinion.

ExcaliburII
02-25-2008, 06:27 PM
his opponent retired in MP :haha:

FiBeR
02-26-2008, 12:00 AM
Im having a PTS situation in first round..

I think player 1 wins here

antofalia
I.Navarro 6-3 5-7 6-2
Dutra Silva 7-5 4-6 7-6
Marcaccio 6-3 4-6 6-3
Delgado 7-5 6-4
Menendez 7-5 7-5
Schwank 6-3 6-2


betty
I. Navarro 6-4/6-1
R. Dutra Silva 7-5/2-6/6-3
G. Marcaccio 6-3/6-2
R. Delgado 6-1/5-7/6-3
A. Menendez 6-3/6-4
E. Schwank 7-6/7-5


Result: SR1 PTS

Alves 62 76

thanks to that +2 for correct set :shrug:

SR2 onwards..

Junqueira 62 61
Decoud 64 57 63
Zampieri 64 62
Polansky 76 76
Schwank 64 64

Aldi 62 75 -this match to be analized..cos in a webpage it was told his rival retired but in the atp page it didnt say anything :shrug: but it is SR4pts so :shrug:-

:shrug: all have wrong winners but 1 match :scratch: but i think the rule goes a +2 for a correct set when not naming the correct winner but naming a correct set there

:shrug: im also not 100% sure if in R1 when there are PTS1-10 we should count them all :tape:

adee-gee
02-26-2008, 12:26 AM
Yes, antofalia wins on PTS :sad:

SRs are equal, so it goes to PTS. (only count PTS1, and if that's tied then go to PTS2)....

FiBeR
02-26-2008, 12:47 AM
:yeah: i thought i did it right, i just wanted to re-check :tape:

thanks adam :hug:

keqtqiadv
02-26-2008, 12:48 AM
sorry :lol: I must be sleeping :lol:

Enjoy Incubus
02-26-2008, 03:21 AM
Don't blame the rules Felipe! Vicente's opponent knew you needed Vicente, that's why you lost, he doesn't like you :p

Jimnik
02-26-2008, 11:51 PM
Could somebody check this for me.

Wolves68
Fognini 6-4 6-3
Roitman 7-6 6-3
Starace 6-4 7-6
Volandri 6-4 6-3
Granollers 6-2 6-3
Monaco 6-4 6-3
Andreev 7-6 6-3
Almagro 6-4 6-3

Tomek.
FOGNINI 6-4 6-3
ROITMAN 6-4 6-3
STARACE 6-4 6-3
VOLANDRI 6-4 6-3
GRANOLLERS 6-4 6-3
MONACO 6-4 6-3
ANDREEV 6-4 6-3
ALMAGRO 6-4 6-3

PTS1-8 are even.
--> No CB in this round.
--> Match decided by Game Difference and Number of Games System....

PTS1: Even

PTS2:
Wolves68 --> -4 game difference and 22 games played
Tomek. --> -6 game difference and 19 games played

result --> +5 game difference and 19 games played

Wolves68 --> 9 game difference and 3 games played = 12
Tomek. --> 11 game difference and 0 games played = 11

Tomek. def Wolves68

Is this correct?

Thanks. :)

GustavoM_Fan
02-26-2008, 11:55 PM
Don't blame the rules Felipe! Vicente's opponent knew you needed Vicente, that's why you lost, he doesn't like you :p

:worship:

yes, all the ATP players check the differences in the MTF TT threads before playing his tennis matches. :)
it is not possible me losing so many singles 1st rounds

a player retiring at MP? how can that be possible? :confused:

Labamba
02-26-2008, 11:56 PM
matches where the players got the winner wrong don't count for GD

Labamba
02-26-2008, 11:59 PM
Could somebody check this for me.

Wolves68
Fognini 6-4 6-3
Roitman 7-6 6-3
Starace 6-4 7-6
Volandri 6-4 6-3
Granollers 6-2 6-3
Monaco 6-4 6-3
Andreev 7-6 6-3
Almagro 6-4 6-3

Tomek.
FOGNINI 6-4 6-3
ROITMAN 6-4 6-3
STARACE 6-4 6-3
VOLANDRI 6-4 6-3
GRANOLLERS 6-4 6-3
MONACO 6-4 6-3
ANDREEV 6-4 6-3
ALMAGRO 6-4 6-3

PTS1-8 are even.
--> No CB in this round.
--> Match decided by Game Difference and Number of Games System....

PTS1: Even

PTS2:
Wolves68 --> -4 game difference and 22 games played
Tomek. --> -6 game difference and 19 games played

result --> +5 game difference and 19 games played

Wolves68 --> 9 game difference and 3 games played = 12
Tomek. --> 11 game difference and 0 games played = 11

Tomek. def Wolves68

Is this correct?

Thanks. :)

Tomek. wins on GD3

Jimnik
02-27-2008, 12:06 AM
matches where the players got the winner wrong don't count for GD

Tomek. wins on GD3
Sure thing, but if thats the case it should probably be stated in the rules somewhere clearly.

Labamba
02-27-2008, 12:10 AM
8. Game Difference and Number of Games System (taken from the PTS scores) (If the picked player of either TT-player loses, the PTS doesn't count for GD purposes; 10 possible GD matches in the first rounds)

more clear now? :p

Jimnik
02-27-2008, 12:10 AM
Cheers :yeah: :p

TankingTheSet
03-03-2008, 02:59 AM
Both players have incorrect winner in the PTS match:

+2 points for every set predicted for the incorrect winner that he wins


I find this part extremely ambiguous.

Does this mean +2 points for every set that is in the correct set order, or even if the predicted set is not in the correct order?

Labamba
03-03-2008, 07:38 AM
I find this part extremely ambiguous.

Does this mean +2 points for every set that is in the correct set order, or even if the predicted set is not in the correct order?

this one

TankingTheSet
03-22-2008, 09:09 PM
OK there seems to be a lot of confusion over this SF doubles match in Sunrise CH:

rototito picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-3
ReyDavid08 picked Tipsarevic 6-4 7-5

Netin! picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-7 6-4
JMG picked Tipsarevic 2-1 (accidently didn't specify a scoreline)

Actual result was that Haase won 6-4 1-6 6-3
So Tipsarevic lost 4-6 6-1 3-6
The correct winner is Haase, and the incorrect winner is Tipsarevic.

ReyDavid08 and rotito both get 1 point (one set correct order)
ReyDavid08 and rototito both get +2 points for one set predicted for the incorrect winner (Tipsarevic) that he wins
total = 6 pts

Netin! gets +2 points (one set predicted for incorrect winner that he wins)
JMG *maybe* gets +2 points (one set predicted for incorrect winner that he wins)
total = 2 or 4 pts

ReyDavid08/rototito win on PTS

Is this correct, and if not, why not?

Labamba
03-22-2008, 09:20 PM
incorrect winner means in this case Haase, he was the predicted incorrect winner

the incorrect winner is a bad term, but the system is logical

Superior1
03-22-2008, 09:23 PM
Both players have incorrect winner in the PTS match:

+2 points for every set predicted for the incorrect winner that he wins.

So the incorrect winner in the first sentence is Janko, and in the second one is Haase?

Superior1
03-22-2008, 09:24 PM
In that case, should be written in the second sentence :Correct winner

TankingTheSet
03-22-2008, 09:38 PM
I understand the logic behind Labamba's reasoning, predicting a set for Haase in this case deserves extra points. But I guess the problem is that when in doubt managers try to follow the TB rules exactly as they are written and in this case the way they are written is extremely confusing. I mean I used to understand that Labamba's explanation was the intended rule, but reading the rules litterrally confused me completely.

So I recommend changing the wording of the rule.

Superior1
03-22-2008, 09:44 PM
Ok, I will listen to Labamba(I have to :p), but really, that sentence has to be changed. It is really confusing, with two meanings of the term INCORRECT WINNER.

Labamba
03-22-2008, 09:45 PM
I'll change the wording, I can see now how it can confuse people.

TankingTheSet
03-22-2008, 09:47 PM
So let's review this:

rototito picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-3
ReyDavid08 picked Tipsarevic 6-4 7-5

Netin! picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-7 6-4
JMG picked Tipsarevic 2-1 (accidently didn't specify a scoreline)

Actual result was that Haase won 6-4 1-6 6-3
So Tipsarevic lost 4-6 6-1 3-6
The correct winner is Haase, and the incorrect winner is Tipsarevic.

ReyDavid08 and rotito both get 1 point (one set correct order)
total = 2 pts

Netin! gets +2 points (one set predicted for Haase)
JMG *maybe* gets +2 points (one set predicted for Haase)
total = 2 or 4 pts

Netin!/JMG win on PTS 4:2

Another issue raised here is caused by the fact that JMG forgot to give a scoreline, but only gave a set-ratio. Does JMG get +2 points for correctly predicting a set to Haase?
If not, the PTS are tied at 2:2.

Superior1
03-22-2008, 09:49 PM
So let's review this:

rototito picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-3
ReyDavid08 picked Tipsarevic 6-4 7-5

Netin! picked Tipsarevic 6-4 6-7 6-4
JMG picked Tipsarevic 2-1 (accidently didn't specify a scoreline)

Actual result was that Haase won 6-4 1-6 6-3
So Tipsarevic lost 4-6 6-1 3-6
The correct winner is Haase, and the incorrect winner is Tipsarevic.

ReyDavid08 and rotito both get 1 point (one set correct order)
total = 2 pts

Netin! gets +2 points (one set predicted for Haase)
JMG *maybe* gets +2 points (one set predicted for Haase)
total = 2 or 4 pts

Netin!/JMG win on PTS 4:2

Another issue raised here is caused by the fact that JMG forgot to give a scoreline, but only gave a set-ratio. Does JMG get +2 points for correctly predicting a set to Haase?
If not, the PTS are tied at 2:2.

:tape::tape:

Labamba
03-22-2008, 10:15 PM
for me...if you don't send a PTS score, you don't get PTS points

but it's up for discussion in cases like this

Netin!
03-22-2008, 10:15 PM
Who won really?

Labamba
03-22-2008, 10:27 PM
you and JMG (on CB atleast if not on PTS)

Netin!
03-22-2008, 10:33 PM
you and JMG (on CB atleast if not on PTS)

Ok. Thanks. :woohoo:

ExcaliburII
03-22-2008, 10:54 PM
Ridiculous luck

Tennis-Engineer
04-05-2008, 07:48 PM
In SR-Shoot Out, is the priority with Correct SR Shoot out or Correct Winner Shoot out ?

Genius1787/mechi posted:

Andujar 2-1 & Andujar 2-0
Daniel 2-1 & Gil 2-1
Starace 2-0 & Starace 2-0
Patience 2-0 & Patience 2-0

InzainSoulja/Tennis-Engineer :

Andujar 2-1 & De Bakker 2-1
Daniel 2-1 & Daniel 2-0
Starace 2-1 & Starace 2-0
Patince 2-0 & Patience 2-0

The real results were :

Andujar 2-1
Daniel 2-0
Starace 2-0
Patince 2-1

In correct winners two teams tie 7-7.In correct SR, tie 3-3.In SR Shoot out 1 (Andujar 2-1) : tie 1-1.In SR Shoot out 2: (Daniel 2-0) Inzain/T-E 1-0 Genius/mechi. But if correct winner shoot out is Before SR shoot out Genius1787/mechi win on winner 1 : Andujar +2 vs Andujar +1.

Which one is correct ?

Labamba
04-05-2008, 07:50 PM
Genius1787/mechi win on SR1, shoot-out includes both winner and SR

TankingTheSet
04-17-2008, 03:01 AM
:wavey: I've been wondering about TB1 (the number of winners in SR matches), which happens in large OOPS and often in doubles first rounds and QFs. Originally the reason for this rule was something like "to prevent weird results in large OOPS".

However I fail understand what the point of this rule is, I think in practice it doesn't create more "deserved" wins, it only serves to complicates things. The system would be a whole lot simpler and more elegant by just removing this rule completely. The only thing it does is making it extremely unappealing to take a risk in non-SR matches --> the only it does is creating less differences and more boring TT. In fact it often makes the actual number of correct SRs predicted completely irrelevant while intuitively the number of correct SRs would be a much more reasonable way to decide the match.

GustavoM_Fan
04-17-2008, 03:17 AM
I agree with this too

the sense of this rule was to avoid undeserved wins in large oops.

per example

player A have:

Federer 2-0
Nadal 2-0
Davydenko 2-0
Roddick 2-0
Marcaccio 2-0
Nalbandian 2-0
Chela 2-0
Gaudio 2-0
Coria 2-0
Eschauer 2-0
Aldi
Hernandez
Roddick

Player B have:
Federer 2-0
Nadal 2-0
Davydenko 2-0
Roddick 2-0
Marcaccio 2-0
Nalbandian 2-0
Chela 2-0
Gaudio 2-0
Coria 2-0
Monaco 2-0
Aldi
Young
Roddick


if Monaco wins. Player B is supposed to be a deserved winner because Monaco vs Eschauer match was a Set Ratio Match following the oop designed by the manager.
The other match (Young vs Hernandez) is not too considered because the manager didnt pick it to be SR

in the end is a little contradictory.
I prefer to change it in the future

adee-gee
04-18-2008, 12:05 AM
:wavey: I've been wondering about TB1 (the number of winners in SR matches), which happens in large OOPS and often in doubles first rounds and QFs. Originally the reason for this rule was something like "to prevent weird results in large OOPS".

However I fail understand what the point of this rule is, I think in practice it doesn't create more "deserved" wins, it only serves to complicates things. The system would be a whole lot simpler and more elegant by just removing this rule completely. The only thing it does is making it extremely unappealing to take a risk in non-SR matches --> the only it does is creating less differences and more boring TT. In fact it often makes the actual number of correct SRs predicted completely irrelevant while intuitively the number of correct SRs would be a much more reasonable way to decide the match.
These are very fair points, I see where you're coming from.

I think the idea was that the person who picked more winners from the "tougher SR matches" should progress. But I can see the angle you're coming from and tend to agree to be honest.

eljab
04-23-2008, 08:12 PM
Question on Tunis points

according to this :

http://www.tct.org.tn/upl/fact_sheet.pdf

I probably give too much points in Tunis (1, 11, 25, 48, 75 and 108)

Thanks to confirm if i keep my points (from Tunis 2007) or if i have to change to new points.

Zirconek
04-23-2008, 09:25 PM
Question on Tunis points

according to this :

http://www.tct.org.tn/upl/fact_sheet.pdf

I probably give too much points in Tunis (1, 11, 25, 48, 75 and 108)

Thanks to confirm if i keep my points (from Tunis 2007) or if i have to change to new points.

there's an additional 20% in points for challengers, it's not like the ATP distribution ;)

I was confused by this too in my first tournament

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4423014&postcount=1
(points at the bottom of the post)

please note if you want to put the type (prize money) in Euros, you can't put the same value as dollars like you did :p

eljab
04-24-2008, 07:33 AM
there's an additional 20% in points for challengers, it's not like the ATP distribution ;)

I was confused by this too in my first tournament

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4423014&postcount=1
(points at the bottom of the post)

please note if you want to put the type (prize money) in Euros, you can't put the same value as dollars like you did :p

Thanks.:worship:
Now it's clear.
Too hard to put the prize money in euro. Divide by 1.6 and change every day...:p

eljab
04-24-2008, 07:36 AM
Grrr...
I already saw the link you show me...
But i've forget it :o

Zirconek
04-24-2008, 01:27 PM
Thanks.:worship:
Now it's clear.
Too hard to put the prize money in euro. Divide by 1.6 and change every day...:p
I really had a hard time trying to figure how would be the points, then I asked and they told me :p
I'd prefer being paid in Euros :)
dollar :ras: :down:
BTW the Prague Challenger is as € 64,000 in ATP calendar :lol: ($75K)
and the previous Challengers in Morocco are in €, but the next, in dollar, probably they will wait for the new currency to change it. :scratch:


Grrr...
I already saw the link you show me...
But i've forget it :o
yes sometimes is hard to remember or find some threads, maybe they should be sticky.

eljab
04-24-2008, 06:49 PM
yes sometimes is hard to remember or find some threads, maybe they should be sticky.

Yes!
With a post it on my screen ;)

eljab
04-26-2008, 08:46 PM
eljab :wavey:

Escude is playing in Barcelona...take him off the draw here and replace with LL from qualifying

I'm embarassed :

Escude was in my entry list.
So I had 5 players for 4 qualifying places.
With Escude out, no need of qualification.
But the draw should be different. Some player of qualifying draw are well ranked and could be top seed.
Must I make a new draw ?

Labamba
04-26-2008, 08:58 PM
I'm embarassed :

Escude was in my entry list.
So I had 5 players for 4 qualifying places.
With Escude out, no need of qualification.
But the draw should be different. Some player of qualifying draw are well ranked and could be top seed.
Must I make a new draw ?

I think it would be fair to the players to make a new draw. These things happen, it's not your fault.

eljab
04-26-2008, 09:03 PM
I think it would be fair to the players to make a new draw. These things happen, it's not your fault.

Ok.
Escude should said he was out ;)
Thanks.

I'll make a new draw.

eljab
05-12-2008, 11:04 AM
New question for double :

One member of a team didn't sent pick

according to the rules, the team must be out (in the first round) and replaced by LL.
But one member of the LL team didn't sent pick too.

Wich one stay in the draw ?
The first one, or the LL one ?

:confused:

Labamba
05-12-2008, 11:39 AM
New question for double :

One member of a team didn't sent pick

according to the rules, the team must be out (in the first round) and replaced by LL.
But one member of the LL team didn't sent pick too.

Wich one stay in the draw ?
The first one, or the LL one ?

:confused:

the first one

LL is only 'valid' if both players send picks

eljab
05-12-2008, 11:52 AM
the first one

LL is only 'valid' if both players send picks

Ok thanks.
It seems me fair :worship: