Mens Tennis Forums banner

2008 TT TB System

9K views 100 replies 25 participants last post by  eljab 
#1 · (Edited)
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)
 
#3 ·
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:
 
#6 ·
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
 
#20 ·
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)
 
#14 ·
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
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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'
 
#29 ·
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?
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#40 ·
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:
 
#41 ·
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:
 
#42 ·
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!
 
#46 ·
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
 
#44 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#50 · (Edited)
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.
 
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