Mens Tennis Forums banner

Would you participate?

  • Yes, with all 128 players

    Votes: 19 70.4%
  • Yes, with only the 32 seeds

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • No. Too boring/long/don't care.

    Votes: 6 22.2%

Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

2K views 27 replies 9 participants last post by  Pratik 
#1 ·
Instead of having the boring Seed Elimination game which we had the past few grand slams, I was wondering if we could have a slightly more interesting game this AO onwards.

I have made this thread to see if people would be interested in such a game and for suggestions for its format.

As of now I thought it could be something similar to what Slasher had in mind for the Favourite top 100 final(since it is not going to happen over there):

Tennis draw: This is the format I was thinking of. The 8 players are put inside a Final Draw (this first phase being called Draw Phase). During the Draw Phase, the players are pitted against each other in 4 "matches", in which users vote the winner of each "match". Each match is the style of a tennis match, so each vote is a "tennis point" 0-15, 0-30. The matches are played 3/5 sets. Two seeds are selected from the 8 players. In the next phase, the Final 4 Phase, two matches are played between the remaining 4 players. Finally, we have the Final Duel, between the two most voted for players, 4/7 sets.
For us, each match could just be according to the actual draw, with 128 players instead of just 8.
This would very tough for the first few rounds, so we could simplify it a little by having only one set or doing something like this:

^^With 128 players it's tough indeed.
It would require some awareness from the entrants, the more since you can't start a thread for every single match of the early rounds.
Everybody would have to take care of simultaneous voting and wrong counting.

For reducing the amount of everything my idea would be to use less extensive counting systems in the early rounds.
For example:
1st Rd: 1 vote = 1 game (also in tiebreak) ...so a player needs at least 3x6 = 18 votes for victory
2nd Rd: 1 vote = 2 points (4 points in tiebreak), counting would be: "30-0", "game", or "30-30" (tiebreak: 4-0 , set , 4-4) ...hence at least 36 votes are needed for victory
3rd Rd: 1 vote = 1 point, but all games are started from Deuce (in tiebreak from "6-6"), so a player needs a 2 points lead ...that can already take a bit longer

If the participation is too low, the Rd 1 counting system could be applied for Rd 2 too, the Rd 2 system for Rd 3 etc. or reversely if many people take part.
It has to be tested out.
But even with the shorter counting systems lots of threads would be needed after all.
For the 1st Rd 8 threads à 8 matches is the minimum to avoid problems with simultaneous voting and wrong counting, I think.
Not impossible but definitely tougher than "Seed elimination", but also more fun (given it works).
We could also have a hybrid tournament with something easier in the early rounds, like :

Elimination: In this format, people give points for the 8 players (Eurovision style). Their favorite gets 15 points, second 11, third 8, fourth 6, fifth 4, sixth 2, seventh 1 and last 0. Every few hours the last place is eliminated, until only one remains.
Alternatively(if you think this is too lengthy), we could have the tournament only for the seeds, and start off with 32 players itself(like the Seed Elimination game).

So, would you be interested in participating in such a game? If so, please vote in the poll and specify which of the formats specified you would like. Alternatively, you could propose changes in the format, or an entirely new one.

(In case it was not clear, if participation seems likely, I volunteer to organize the tournament. I see no point in doing it if posters here think it would be too long/boring and are not going to participate. Hence, this thread)
 
See less See more
#2 ·
If you do 128 players, make the first two rounds just tie-breaks (first to seven). Third and fourth round should be one-set. Quarters and semis should be best-of-three, and the final would be best-of-five. That would take quite long, still, but it would certainly be fun.

Key is, make the early matches very short.
 
#3 · (Edited)
If it could be managed to accommodate all 128 players, that would be great indeed.

If you do 128 players, make the first two rounds just tie-breaks (first to seven). Third and fourth round should be one-set. Quarters and semis should be best-of-three, and the final would be best-of-five.
Yes, that sounds better than what I had in mind initially, at least for the rounds two and three.
With most of it and also the separation I would agree.
Only, a single tiebreak (7 votes to victory) is maybe a bit short, even for 1st and 2nd Rd matches.
Imagine the blockbuster Federer-Nalbandian here on MTF.
Bo3 tiebreaks (14 votes to victory) may be more appropriate.

However, there are other problems, that might make a Tennis-score counting format too impractical in general:
Already "Seed elimination" relies to some extent on the fairness and awareness of the voters, with giving the correct score, sticking to the time-rule of voting again and watching out for others who violate rules.
Anyway, if somebody breaks these rules (and it's detected) the score can be corrected relatively easily there.
But with this game and the planned "uncontinuous score" (deuce, advantage, deuce) a score correction would be much more difficult (even with only a few simultaneous matches or with just one).
Probably the counting format needs to be more simple; continuous, and therefore less Tennis-score-like but more like a normal voting.
 
#5 ·
I'm pretty sure this is the same as PYW (which died after awhile with not enough people participating)
 
#9 · (Edited)
Very similar, yes.
But PYW was located in the games section (of MTF) despite being rather a voting or just a diversion.
It would better be resident in Non-Tennis (or Off-topic).
It would need just one thread per tournament there and being held only occasionally (during the GrandSlams for instance).
Furthermore, with PYW voters were not allowed to post the ongoing scores (livescores), which made it quite boring, I think.

After learning a bit about PYW and on the basis of my assessments in the other post I think a game with like the following set of rules would be worth giving a try at least:
(It's just a blueprint!)


1.) each vote = one game (also the tiebreak); for example: 6-5 or 6-6 or 7-6(set)

This voting game relies to an extent on the fairness and also on the awareness of it's participants.
2.) You don't have to vote for all of the simultaneously held matches,
but either way you are only allowed to vote once in one hour! (waiting-rule)
3.) It can happen that while somebody is writing their voting-post somebody else votes in the interim.
Therefore, before you vote please always check the last three voting-posts for a correct continous scoreline!
If for example somebody voted 6:4 (coming from 5:4) for player A and the one after them voted the same (6:4), then please regard it as being 6:4 1:0 for player A when posting your own votes. If the one after them voted 5:5 then you should realize the correct score being 6:5 actually.
4.) And look out for people violating the one-hour-waiting rule!
5.) And after you posted your votes please look out for somebody who posted in the interim and if so please edit your own post to adjust it to the correct scoreline.
6.) But never ever delete your voting-posts!!
...I'm afraid this possibility is the biggest problem, albeit rather unlikely maybe. If it happens the organzier could disqualify posters and issue a "black list".
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
8.) Read post #1 before starting new matches on your own!

...Yes, that were some lines of text to read for new participants and not all of them will do so. On the other hand there hopefully (for the matter) will be people who play this game more often and who correct the mistakes of the others. This mix may work.

for the organizer(s):
-Only a single thread is needed per tournament.
-organizer = post #1 (co-organizer = post #2 ...if possible)
-In post #1 the organizer publishes the schedule/sequence of "packs" of simultaneous matches (or points to post #2).
-A new pack of matches starts automatically as soon as one has completely ended, unless the organizer sais otherwise / gives a starting time in post #1 (or #2) !
-packs of simultaneous matches:
. -four matches during the first three rounds
. -two matches in round four
. -only a single match from the QF onwards
-Scoring format:
. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
. ->The scoring format for the ongoing round should be displayed in the thread title as well, as a reminder for everybody.

...Depending on the participation (has to be tested out) the scoring format can be adjusted.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top