[Fat Camel]

SIMON, Gilles vs. VOLANDRI, Filippo 6-2
ROBREDO, Tommy vs. LEVINE, Jesse 4-6
LU, Yen-Hsun vs. RAMIREZ HIDALGO, Ruben 6-6
MONFILS, Gael vs. DOLGOPOLOV, Alexandr 6-4
MAYER, Florian vs. WILLIAMS, Rhyne 6-1
BERANKIS, Ricardas vs. STAKHOVSKY, Sergiy 6-6
SOUSA, Joao vs. SMITH, John-Patrick 5-7
HASSE, Robin vs. MURRAY, Andy 6-6

[Mark Lenders]

SIMON, Gilles vs. VOLANDRI, Filippo 6-2
ROBREDO, Tommy vs. LEVINE, Jesse 4-6
LU, Yen-Hsun vs. RAMIREZ HIDALGO, Ruben 7-6
MONFILS, Gael vs. DOLGOPOLOV, Alexandr 6-4
MAYER, Florian vs. WILLIAMS, Rhyne 6-1
BERANKIS, Ricardas vs. STAKHOVSKY, Sergiy 6-7
SOUSA, Joao vs. SMITH, John-Patrick 5-7
HASSE, Robin vs. MURRAY, Andy 7-6

I insist that it'd be more interesting if tiebreaks were played out from R2 onwards (ie 6-6 (1-0), 6-6 (1-1), etc...) Would make it more 'real' tennis-like.

[Featherer]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Just a suggestion, but it'd be cool if tiebreaks were played out ie 6-6 (1-0) 6-6 (2-0), etc... especially in the latter rounds but also even in the first round, I think.

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

I insist that it'd be more interesting if tiebreaks were played out from R2 onwards (ie 6-6 (1-0), 6-6 (1-1), etc...) Would make it more 'real' tennis-like.

For the early rounds 6 votes to win the set=match, but then another 7 votes to win the tiebreak would be a strange ratio, no?
Moreover, tiebreaks don't happen so very often. The few matches in which they occur would last twice as long as the other matches of the respective "pack" while it'd be the only matches people could vote for during that time. That might be boring in the early rounds when not all matches are attractive for many people.
As soon as the Bo3 stage is reached this tiebreak rule would be less strange, but less significant for a better result at the same time, as Bo3 1.)takes longer and 2.)provides already more tactical opportunities.

The participation in this game is good so far, but for Bo3 as early as the 2nd round it might be still too low.

[Pratik]

Group 1, Pack 7

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 0-1
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 0-1
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 1-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 1-0
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 1-0
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 1-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 0-1
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 0-1

[Mark Lenders]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 1-1
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 1-1
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 2-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 1-1
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 2-0
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 2-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 1-1
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 1-1

[BackhandDTL]

I was actually thinking tiebreaks would be cool to play out as well, even at this stage.

It's an awkward ratio, sure, but matches like that call for it if they get that for. I think a tb would better reflect the competitive nature of the "match".

[Fat Camel]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 1-2
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 2-1
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 3-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 1-2
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 3-0
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 3-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 1-2
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 1-2

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by BackhandDTL

I was actually thinking tiebreaks would be cool to play out as well, even at this stage.

It's an awkward ratio, sure, but matches like that call for it if they get that for. I think a tb would better reflect the competitive nature of the "match".

Fully agree. Would be cool if tiebreaks were implemented from the second round onwards, but of course it's up to Pratik - he came up with a game after all (cool game btw, way better than seed elimination ).

[bry17may]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 2-2
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 2-2
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 4-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 1-3
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 3-1
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 4-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 1-3
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 2-2

I believe that we have to play TB's but maybe can be until a player reach 4 point by difference of two, of this way the TB won´t be so long like a match

[Pratik]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

I insist that it'd be more interesting if tiebreaks were played out from R2 onwards (ie 6-6 (1-0), 6-6 (1-1), etc...) Would make it more 'real' tennis-like.

Originally Posted by BackhandDTL

I was actually thinking tiebreaks would be cool to play out as well, even at this stage.

It's an awkward ratio, sure, but matches like that call for it if they get that for. I think a tb would better reflect the competitive nature of the "match".

@Lenders, Sorry for the late reply.

My main issue with tiebreaks being played out is, as Featherer mentioned, that it would become longer than the set itself. As a result, there would be one(maybe two) matches going on, while all others of the pack would be done.

My initial idea, which I think would solve your issue, was to change the sets to non-tiebreak sets. So, in a Bo3 format, the first two would be tie break sets with the TB being treated as one game. And for the last set, no tiebreak. You require a difference of two games. Let it go to 70-68 if needed .
Thoughts?

[kr1s71an]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 3-2
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 2-3
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 5-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 2-3
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 4-1
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 5-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 2-3
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 2-3

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Pratik

@Lenders, Sorry for the late reply.

My main issue with tiebreaks being played out is, as Featherer mentioned, that it would become longer than the set itself. As a result, there would be one(maybe two) matches going on, while all others of the pack would be done.

My initial idea, which I think would solve your issue, was to change the sets to non-tiebreak sets. So, in a Bo3 format, the first two would be tie break sets with the TB being treated as one game. And for the last set, no tiebreak. You require a difference of two games. Let it go to 70-68 if needed .
Thoughts?

Why not do both though? I understand the idea of rushing through the first three rounds, lots of matchups most people don't even care about much and more chance at 'upsets'. But from R4 onwards, it's safe to assume matchups will be interesting for the most part and it's not like there is not plenty of time to play the game: we could both play out tiebreaks in sets 1 and 2 and make set 3 an advantage set. We could get epic scorelines like 7-6 (6), 6-7 (4), 17-15

In the first three rounds, that'd probably lead to prolong a matchup between two unpopular players, but from round 4 on I don't think that risk exists, in theory we'll have the 16 most liked players around here or something close to that anyway.

[Fat Camel]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 3-3
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 3-3
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 6-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 2-4
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 5-1
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 6-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 2-4
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 2-4

[coluta]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 4-3
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 3-4
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 6-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 2-5
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 6-1
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 6-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 2-5
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 2-5

[Eddy DoubleD]

TSONGA, Jo-Wilfried vs. LLODRA, Michael 5-3
SOEDA, Go vs. SAVILLE, Luke 3-5
DUCKWORTH, James vs. MITCHELL, Benjamin 6-0
KAVCIC, Blaz vs. BELLUCCI, Thomaz 2-6
HAAS, Tommy vs. NIEMINEN, Jarkko 6-1
DODIG, Ivan vs. WU, Di 6-0
OUANNA, Josselin vs. FALLA, Alejandro 3-5
MONTANES, Albert vs. GASQUET, Richard 2-6